NHS: Refugee Doctors

Baroness Neuberger: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will provide the necessary support for refugee doctors in order for them to qualify to work in the National Health Service.

Lord Warner: My Lords, over the past four years we have invested over £2 million in providing support, advice and training for refugee health professionals. That has been good value for money as over 1,000 refugee doctors have benefited from the funding. We believe that at least 160 refugee doctors are now working in the NHS as a result of our support. Many more are beginning to reach the position where they can apply for jobs.
	The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has praised our pioneering work in this area and pledged support for the work that we are doing and which the NHS will continue to do.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Indeed, the Government have done extraordinarily well in supporting refugee doctors thus far. Until August 2004, the money to support refugee doctors was held centrally and now it has been spread out to the special health authorities, to the strategic health authorities and to the Workforce Development Confederation. Will the Government consider reinstating central funding to support refugee doctors because refugee doctors move around so much and local funding makes it difficult for them to reach the support that has already been given to them by the Government?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we took the advice of our Refugee Health Professional Steering Group, which believes that it has fulfilled its original purpose to increase the awareness of the skills and knowledge offered by refugees. We made the final allocation of central funding in August 2004, but it will continue to be overseen by the steering group.
	It is worth giving one example: the North East London Strategic Health Authority, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, has developed a national website to provide career advice and support for refugee health professionals. That shows that there is commitment at the strategic health authority to continue with that work.

Lord Chan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of centres have been helping refugee doctors, particularly in honing their clinical skills? That means more than just attending a course or receiving advice from a body. As that money is now being localised, will the Government, together with hospitals and GP practices, give direction, particularly on university-based courses, so that there is continued support for that very good work and to ensure that the refugee doctors find employment? The figure of 160 out of 1,000 is not very high.

Lord Warner: My Lords, it is worth bearing in mind that one of the conditions for receiving funding for particular projects from the central fund was that they had to demonstrate that they had plans for future sustainability. We are wise to the problems with central funding projects, in that one runs the risk that they may not continue. That is why we have ensured that partnerships are being put in place with pump-priming money that has been spent over the past four years.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, four government departments—the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office—have a role to play in regard to refugee doctors. Can the Minister explain what steps are being taken to ensure the successful collaboration of those departments?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that all those government departments have to work together. We have worked very hard to ensure that our work in the health sector fits with other polices across government. There is a close working relationship with colleagues in the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education and Skills. It is a tribute to that close working relationship that the United Nations gave such a resounding vote of support to the work that we have undertaken in this area.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, is the Minister happy with the facilities to enable refugee doctors to learn English, and perhaps Welsh, in the different areas where major hospitals are situated?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there is a requirement on the doctors to demonstrate their mastery of English before they can practise in this country. Part of the support that we have given is to help doctors to attend language training courses and to improve their English so that they can practise medicine in this country.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister has already mentioned the Home Office, so will he ask his colleagues in that department to ensure that their specialised agency providing services for asylum seekers makes the maximum possible use of refugee doctors, both while their qualifications are being recognised in this country and once they are recognised?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I have said, there is a good close working relationship with the Home Office on this point. People want to give refugee doctors the opportunity to practise in this country when they have attained the necessary qualifications. We have to bear in mind that there are patients at the other end of the equation and we have to ensure that the doctors are suitably qualified to practise in this country.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, perhaps I can press the Minister further. Given that only 160 out of over 1,000 refugee doctors that we know about are at present working, does he feel that still more could be done? For those who are ready to work and who can be registered by the GMC, but who are prevented by immigration rules, could an exception be made, given that we are so short of doctors in this country?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have said that we believe that at least 160 are now working in the NHS. There are over 1,000 doctors registered on the British Medical Association's refugee database and many of them are in the process of qualifying. As I tried to demonstrate in my reply, we hope that we shall see more of those doctors completing their qualifications and working in the National Health Service.

Public Assets: Disposal

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they propose to protect the category of heritage and cultural public assets identified in the Lyons report as "falling within the scope of the Government's proposals to meet their overall public asset disposal financial targets".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the responsibility of individual departments to determine whether to retain or dispose of assets. Departments are aware that they need to take into account all aspects, not just financial, when deciding to dispose of an asset. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has published specific guidance on the disposal of surplus heritage assets, such as historic buildings. This is referred to in Chapter 24 of Government Accounting. The department will also advise on proposed disposals affecting heritage assets. This guidance has not changed in the light of Sir Michael Lyons' report, which made no specific recommendation in relation to the disposal of heritage assets.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is that latter point which concerns many of those who have read the Lyons report. There is, as the Minister has confirmed, no central register relating to the disposal of heritage assets. As a result of government targets, which are to dispose of some £30 billion of publicly owned assets by 2010, there will be pressure on government departments. What guarantee can the Minister give that the DCMS will ensure that the guidelines are observed by other government departments?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the short answer is that the guidelines of 1999, to which I have referred, which are in Government Accounting, still apply and are not affected by Sir Michael Lyons's report. They say that the aim must be the best return for the taxpayer, consistent with government policies for the protection of historic buildings and areas. That is the protection which is required.
	In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may remember that a couple of years ago the House of Lords scored a victory when it prevented the sale at auction of what was called the "Treasury silver", the Privy Council silver. Those cultural assets were transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and are on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum. There is protection for heritage assets; there is no threat to heritage assets from the Lyons report.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, how many departments are there? Does each department now have a committee headed by an assistant secretary looking at the assets to be disposed of? Does each department then in turn have to register with the Treasury, or whatever, and say, "These are the assets we want to get rid of"? As the noble Lord, Lord Cement-Jones, said, would it not be much better to have a central register and a central group of people to look at all our assets, so that there is no second, third and fourth-time guessing?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has caught up. We published the first National Asset Register in 1997. A revised and improved version was published in 2001 and the new one is expected shortly. The National Asset Register is exactly what the noble Baroness asks for.
	In addition, English Heritage has a Government Historic Estates Unit, which produces a biennial conservation report that reports on the state of the heritage assets held by government. Furthermore, there is a great deal of protection for assets through the Museums and Galleries Act, charitable status and so on. We know a great deal more about the heritage assets held by government than we have done in the past.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question for clarification.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I just want to know why there are 30 different committees. Why cannot there just be one to deal with the disposal of the assets?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no need for 30 different committees. The Government set out a strategy and target for the disposal of assets. I am sure that, as somebody with experience in business, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would agree that the operational use of assets is a valuable adjunct to government economic planning, but it does not require any additional bureaucracy.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am a bit surprised. At one point my noble friend seemed to be saying that disposing of financial assets is entirely a matter for departments. Can my noble friend clarify that? Does he mean that the Treasury takes no interest whatever?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the use of assets held by government, government departments are not set total targets and they are not told which assets to dispose of. The important point, which my noble friend Lord Barnett will remember from our debates a couple of year ago, is that under this Government operational assets are treated as a capital charge on the departments concerned. Therefore, the depreciation on those assets is counted against those departments' accounts. So there is pressure on departments to dispose of assets which are surplus to the department's requirement. I suggest to the House that that is a very desirable thing.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is there not an underlying problem that is very relevant to the noble Lord's question? There are large numbers of works of art that are publicly owned—sometimes by central government, sometimes by local government, and sometimes, indeed, by museums—but are not catalogued. Is it not undesirable that these assets should not be catalogued? That means that, first, they probably will not be looked after; and, secondly, they may be disposed of inappropriately by one means or another. Will the noble Lord encourage the cataloguing of all publicly owned works of art?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly what the National Asset Register does. If the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has any evidence of uncatalogued assets I should be glad to hear it because it is a matter that would concern us. Of course it is important that we should know what our assets are and that those assets should perform financially when necessary. It is also important that they should be disposed of if they are not performing financially. But I emphasise that heritage assets are not counted in that sense; they are not a charge against departments; and departments are not encouraged or forced to dispose of them for financial reasons.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that one of the virtues of the victory that the House of Lords won two years ago was to remind the Treasury in this Administration that candle ends are still important?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was not a failing of the Treasury that had ever occurred to me. I thought that it had always had candle-ends departments.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister paints a very rosy picture, but is it not a fact that there is no central disposal of heritage assets and the DCMS guidance does not cover assets such as pictures and other works of art?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I am painting an accurate picture of the situation. There is pressure for the disposal of non-performing assets other than heritage assets. Heritage assets are protected by the fact that they are not a capital charge on the departments that own them. The guidance that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport gives on the proposed disposal of heritage assets is that it should be in accordance with government policies for the protection of those assets. That seems to be a 100 per cent answer to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

Avian Flu

Lord Chan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements have been made in the National Health Service regarding the risk of an outbreak of avian influenza from South East Asia.

Lord Warner: My Lords, at present there is no confirmed evidence of person-to-person spread of avian influenza in south-east Asia. Guidance for the NHS on the detection, diagnosis and treatment of potential cases of avian flu has been prepared by the Health Protection Agency, in collaboration with the Department of Health, and is published on the HPA's website. Antiviral agents are available within the NHS for the treatment and prevention of infection.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I wish to press him on some further points. First, will he consider further what public health messages should be disseminated to the public through primary care trusts; secondly, what advice should be given to those considering taking holidays in south-east Asia, given the difficulties encountered in the past two weeks in Thailand, Vietnam and China, where there have been regular outbreaks of avian flu, with deaths in the latest outbreak; and, thirdly, what information should travel agents disseminate?

Lord Warner: My Lords, it is the Government's longstanding practice to advise the travel industry on areas where people need to consider their decision to go or to take necessary health precaution before going. I see no need to amend that in the light of the avian flu situation. It is worth bearing in mind that there have been outbreaks of avian flu in Vietnam and Thailand in the past 12 months, with 45 cases in total.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further on the arrangements already made, should there be an outbreak of avian flu in this country. The United States Government have apparently commissioned 2 million doses of avian flu vaccine, enough for people working in the healthcare industry and laboratory workers. Is the United Kingdom making any such arrangements?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have a pandemic flu plan, whose revision is under way. The United States has pursued its own policy in this area. Antiviral drugs are very expensive and do not have an indefinite life. Our plans must be proportionate to the risk.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, when the outbreak occurred, there was a temporary ban on the import of wild birds into this country as part of the caged-bird trade. Has that ban, which expired a month or so ago, been renewed? Notwithstanding all the welfare and biodiversity arguments against the capture of wild birds, does the Minister think that the ban should be in place permanently on health grounds?

Lord Warner: My Lords, Defra has published a contingency plan for dealing with avian flu; it is available on its website. I shall look into the noble Baroness's point and write to her, but she may also wish to consult the Defra website.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I was not clear from the Minister's answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, whether the Government have any plans to stockpile the antiviral drug Tamiflu, which remains our only and best avenue to tackle an outbreak of avian influenza.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have not only a plan but also a stockpile.

Lord Chan: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to answer the first part of my supplementary question on advice for primary care trusts to give to local residents.

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I have said, we do not have any cases of avian flu in this country. A lot of attention has been given to primary care work and advice on the influenza conditions that we do have in this country during the winter. Doctors are well advised on that. Where there is a need to advise primary care trusts and doctors on public health grounds, the Chief Medical Officer will provide an alert in the normal way.

Sudan: Darfur

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures they are taking to respond to the recent call from the United Nations Secretary-General for member states to give greater support to the African Union Mission in Darfur and to address the situation there.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the United Kingdom fully supports the African Union's efforts to resolve the conflict in Darfur. We have allocated over £40 million to support the mission, from which we have provided significant logistical support, including 143 vehicles. We have also seconded a UK military officer to the AU to provide technical support.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that, with international focus inevitably now on events in and around the Indian Ocean, and on the signing of the north-south peace accord, we must remain focused on the continuing atrocities in Darfur? Will she confirm the UN estimates that some 70,000 fatalities have occurred there, 1.7 million people are displaced, 2.2 million are now dependent on aid and therefore at great risk should starvation begin to occur, and some 400 villages have been razed to the ground? Did the noble Baroness see the comments of Kofi Annan just four days ago that the situation in Darfur remains horrific? He said:
	"the vital African Union Mission deserves greater support".
	He commented that the security situation is deteriorating and an intensification of violence, including government air attacks, has taken place.
	Does the noble Baroness therefore agree that the very small number of African Union troops—perhaps she can confirm the actual number, in an area the size of France—is not adequate to deal with the threat? Does she further agree that the need for the imposition of a no-fly zone remains very urgent to stop the rearming of the Janjaweed, which has been responsible for the terrorising of these communities, the fatalities and the wholesale rape and massacre of vast numbers of people?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right to say that we need to continue to focus on Darfur. The signing of the comprehensive peace agreement offers up some opportunities but we must ensure that what is happening in Darfur is consistent with the peace agreement.
	On the AU deployment, as of 9 January the AU mission comprised 1,162 personnel. I understand that a further 200 Nigerian troops have arrived since then. The noble Lord will know that the plan is to deploy some 3,000 troops to Darfur. In the report from the UN special envoy Jan Pronk to the Security Council yesterday, he said:
	"The strengthening of the AU force on the ground has proved to be effective not only in performing monitoring tasks, but also . . . in protecting the civilian population by a combination of deterrence, mediation and good offices".
	Where the AU has managed to deploy in Darfur, it has had a significant impact.
	We have discussed the no-fly zone previously. The difficulty is how to monitor a no-fly zone over such a large area.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, what has been the difficulty in bringing up the AU force from the level that it has achieved so far, which as I understand from the noble Baroness is 1,256 people, to its agreed strength of 3,320 which was decided on by the African Union Peace and Security Council on 20 October? Initially the troops began to arrive and then there was a hiatus. Is that anything to do with the refusal by the Sudanese authorities to allow US planes to land on their territory? Does the Minister recall that, after the genocide in Rwanda, the UN commission of independent inquiry found that the fundamental failure was a lack of resources and political commitment? Are we not in danger of repeating the same mistakes? What steps are we taking in the Security Council to inject a much greater sense of urgency into this matter?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, a major part of the problem has been logistical. This is the first such mission on this scale undertaken by the AU under its new peace and security mandate, which is partly why we have given so much logistical support, including 143 vehicles and support on the management side.
	The noble Lord will know that we are one of the countries that have been pressing within the Security Council for a much stronger UN Security Council resolution. He will also know that the last resolution was at least unanimously agreed by the Security Council. There has been some movement in that respect. I anticipate that, following last night's report by Jan Pronk to the Security Council, the Security Council will need to review its current position and think about the next steps.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that the problems of the overstretched African Union mission are being exacerbated by the increasing hostility shown by the government of Sudan to international aid organisations, resulting for example in the murder of one worker from Médecins Sans Frontières and the reluctant withdrawal of Save the Children Fund from Darfur?
	Despite those actions by the regime which are increasing the appalling projected death rate of 100,000 per month in the next few months, can the noble Baroness confirm that when the Prime Minister visited Khartoum recently he offered every support possible to the National Islamic Front regime in order for it to survive? How do the British Government square their support for a regime that has had, and which continues to have, so much blood on its hands?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that we have said consistently that the government of Sudan have to take very seriously indeed the issue of providing security to the citizens of Darfur. When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was in Sudan, one of the things he did was to press the government of Sudan not only on wider human rights issues but on these issues of access and security. We have been monitoring very closely the commitments made by the government of Sudan not only in response to that visit but also in response to visits by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary.
	The noble Baroness is quite right. The humanitarian situation remains fragile. Like her, I share concerns about the impact that that has had on aid organisations and the deaths that we have seen with Save the Children and MSF. Save the Children reluctantly came out of Sudan towards the end of last year. Other NGOs remain there. We must ensure that they remain as safe and secure as possible.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we welcome the additional support that the Government have sent to the expanded African Union mission. Of course we welcome that mission itself, which as the noble Baroness rightly says is unprecedented and greatly to be supported. We also, of course, welcome the Naivasha agreement ending Sudan's other war and any knock-on benefits that that may have for Darfur. But meanwhile the killing goes on and the atrocities continue.
	Are we really going to press not merely for a revision of the Security Council's view but for a tough new resolution to the UN Security Council sanctioning the government of Sudan effectively and specifically and preventing the over-flying of the Darfur region by government of Sudan aeroplanes? The noble Baroness says that that is difficult because of monitoring, but frankly that sounds rather a feeble reason. It did not prevent over-flying in another area, over Kurdistan, and it should not prevent it over Darfur. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has reminded us, the atrocities go on. We must press very firmly for them to stop. Are we going to be tough enough?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, recognises as a result of what I and others have said across the Dispatch Box that we have been very tough indeed. He will know from his own experience that part of what we are doing is negotiating with other nations through the Security Council. A number of members of the Security Council are, for example, concerned about moving to the imposition of sanctions. The EU has had an arms embargo against Sudan for many years. We should like to see that extended to a UN embargo. That has not been achieved yet, but, in his report last night to the Security Council, Jan Pronk made a number of recommendations with respect to taking it forward.
	Of course we will continue to work robustly within the Security Council. Of course we will continue to press our international allies on this. But we must also ensure that the government of Sudan and the rebels do what they have promised with respect to the ceasefire and with respect to ensuring humanitarian access and the protection of the vulnerable people in Darfur.

Hereditary Peers' By-Election

The Clerk of the Parliaments: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am now able to announce the result of the by-election to elect a Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer in accordance with Standing Order 10.
	Four Lords completed valid ballot papers. A paper setting out the results is being made available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. The paper gives the number of votes cast for each candidate. The successful candidate was the Earl of Glasgow.

Education Bill [HL]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 5 [Duty to inspect certain schools at prescribed intervals]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 3, line 39, after "prescribed," insert—
	"( ) in the course of any inspection of a school to consult and have regard to the views of the head teacher, staff, parents, pupils and governors of that school,"

Baroness Walmsley: Amendment No. 22 is all about consultation during the course of inspection with heads, staff, pupils and governors and having regard to the views expressed by them. In the run-up to this Committee stage, various organisations got in touch with us and suggested that when conducting an inspection the team needed to consult all these various groups. The simplest thing appeared to us to be to incorporate them all within one amendment. Importantly, the amendment says that the inspector must "have regard" to their views, not just consult them.
	I recognise that we have a dilemma here. On the one hand, how can Ofsted achieve the desired short, sharp, very short notice inspections and yet arrange to see and talk to all of these people? Yet, on the other hand, how can it really get an impression of how well the school is performing, particularly within its wider context in relation to the well-being of children, without talking to this range of people? There has been a real advance in recent years with Ofsted paying more attention to such issues of governance, and meeting and talking with governors, and most recently with it taking the views of pupils into account, which is all very welcome. It would be a great shame if all that were lost.
	Specifically, how can an inspection be completed without considerable discussion with the head and the staff about the aims and objectives of the school and how they go about trying to fulfil them? It is really vital that that goes on to the face of the Bill. Of course, you then get into, "If heads and staff, then what about parents, pupils, governors and support staff?", and we quickly get down to a list—which the Government hate, I know.
	The issue is that all these stakeholder groups representing all the people I have mentioned need to be established and consulted, as that will enable each of their different standpoints about the school to be taken into account in the school's own self-evaluation. Information gathered on how well a school is performing will therefore reflect more directly the priorities of all these stakeholders who have a close day-to-day involvement in the school.
	Teachers' judgments need to be at the centre of assessment and evaluation. The evidence from countries which have adopted this kind of bottom-up self-evaluation is that such approaches have contributed to high levels of achievement for the vast majority of young people—where teachers' own assessment and evaluation of their standards goes up and not down.
	Similarly, it is vital that all those within the school community have a proper stake in and ownership of the inspection and improvement process. This consultation and having regard to their views would contribute to that.
	Parents undoubtedly have more information about schools than they have ever had before, but the nature of this information has in many cases been somewhat misleading, involving a concentration on tests and examination score outcomes.
	Issues of concern to pupils and parents—such as care, enjoyment of learning and emotional security—have been overshadowed by a national focus on targets and performance tables. The Ofsted consultation document, New Inspections and the Viewpoint of Users, referred to questions parents are most likely to ask about schools, such as, "Will my child be happy, safe, learning something, secure from bullying, able to enjoy school?". Yet Ofsted has not provided the means to be able properly to assess whether the new arrangements will achieve that purpose.
	Under the new arrangements it is proposed that Ofsted no longer has a meeting with parents and instead seeks their views via a questionnaire. That brings certain dangers. These meetings have long been criticised for their low turnouts and the new arrangements may well be a more sensible development, but they have the potential to place additional burdens on schools unless they are carefully managed. Given the reduced notice period for inspection, can the Minister say who will be responsible for the reproduction, distribution and collection of the parents' questionnaires?
	There is also the question of the ability of the parents to complete the questionnaires. As communication with Ofsted is now to be primarily in written form, those parents and carers with poor literacy skills and/or those who have English as a second or third language would not have equal opportunity of access to express what they feel about their concerns or even their praise for the school. Can the Minister tell us how the profile of parents and carers who fill in the form and participate in this consultation will be monitored? What action will be taken if there is any evidence that certain groups have been disfranchised by the new arrangements which are now to be in writing?
	It is for these reasons that we feel that our amendment would be much more appropriate and would avoid that danger. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I speak to my Amendment No. 36 which follows on from the contribution that we have just heard. On the first day of Committee my noble friends were particularly helpful in their responses and I hope that my noble friend will agree to consider this matter.
	Section 6 sets out the duty on the appropriate authority to inform parents that the chief inspector proposes to undertake a Section 5 inspection of their children's school. But it does not specify that a meeting should have to take place between the chief inspector and the parents of that school. My amendment ensures that wherever it is reasonably practical—I stress those words—such a meeting should be held.
	I am very happy with the proposed new inspection regime—shorter notice, shorter time, more frequent inspection and, in particular, the fact that a greater number of inspections will be led by one of Her Majesty's inspectorate; also, the chief inspector will be accountable for all reports. All these changes are warmly welcomed. I believe that they will lead to a much more realistic inspection and I hope a rather less stressful one for teachers. But I have a real concern about parental involvement.
	I understand from a very helpful letter from my noble friend that because of the short notice it is considered unreasonable to require schools to arrange the kind of parents' evening that is now arranged prior to the inspection. I also acknowledge that some of the practical points about that were discussed in the DfES paper, A New Relationship with Schools. The paper gave practical examples of about two to five working days' notice being given of inspections. One example was that staff would be informed towards the end of a week, with an inspection running in the following week—from, say, Tuesday lunchtime to Thursday lunchtime.
	Unfortunately, in these illustrations, there is to be no opportunity for a meeting between parents and the inspecting teams. That would be a great pity and I ask my noble friend to give further thought to this. After all, the whole purpose of Ofsted is to improve the quality of schools. To exclude parents from the most visible part of that process would be a major mistake.
	As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, schools will be obliged to inform parents of the inspections and give details of how to contact the inspector. But it is very different relying either on a paper-based response or on one-to-one meetings between parents and the inspectors which to many will be intimidating. One cannot substitute that for an opportunity for parents, in the round and collectively, to meet the inspecting team. Not all parents will take up that opportunity, but many will come and many will come at short notice.
	Ofsted may say, as I think it has, that some of those parents will be unrepresentative. But are we to say that because parents are active and take the trouble to turn up they are to be discounted by Ofsted because they are regarded as somehow peculiar and unrepresentative?
	My own experience in Birmingham with state schools, with four children, has generally been a happy one. My noble friend knows that I have been concerned, along with many parents, about the direction of my youngest child's primary school, Kings Heath. We have not had an Ofsted inspection for years. If we were to get a short-notice inspection—in a school where there is concern among a lot of parents—and then found out that there would not be an opportunity for parents to come together to discuss their concerns with the inspector, particularly where the concern is about the leadership of a school, the result would probably be that parents would have far less respect for the inspection report.
	On the practicalities, I recall many occasions when a school has forgotten, for example, that there is a concert next week, so we get a letter on Friday about the school concert on Monday or Tuesday, and we all troop to it. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that parents will come to a meeting with two or three days' notice. Ofsted has enormous powers over these schools. On the first day of Committee, we debated the accountability of Ofsted; surely one of the most appropriate ways by which Ofsted can be accountable is its accessibility to parents. The meeting with parents is very valuable and I hope that my noble friend will agree to give this further thought.

The Earl of Sandwich: In view of the shortage of time for these inspections, does the noble Lord completely discount the possibility of parent governors taking that role? That is why they were constituted in the first place.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If the parent governors were doing a good job, that would be perfectly possible. However, what about a school where the governing body is weak and has no control over a strong, assertive head? If parents make their concerns known to the governing body and find that nothing happens, what should they do? One of the great opportunities is to go and meet the inspectors. If a lot of parents turn up at the meeting, as they do with some inspections, the inspectorate at least knows that there are some issues that must be confronted. It is in such circumstances that we need the opportunity.

The Earl of Listowel: I rise to support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said about Amendment No. 36 and to speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 37.
	If my noble friend Lord Northbourne were able to be here today, he would strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said. There is an important principle involved: parents should be involved at every opportunity in every way possible in decisions that affect the upbringing of their children. That might seem to go without saying, but I do not think that it does.
	I listened with great interest to the Conservatives' debate yesterday on a low-tax economy and to what my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, the economist, said about the importance of a low-tax economy. He did not argue that the primary reason was an economic one but that it was a question of responsibility, a moral question, and that individuals should not have their responsibility eroded by an unnecessary tax burden.
	I have come across the issue in past debates on childcare. We know that many children arrive at school with language difficulties caused by their poor experience of parenting and that good childcare can help to remedy that and prepare children to arrive at school in better shape. There is a danger that people will say to parents, "We can look after your children better than you can. You can trust us with your children when they are very young", when sometimes the quality of the childcare is not what we would wish. That tension needs to be attended to. I am concerned that we should not, even with the best intentions in the world, erode the sense of parental responsibility. That is why I support strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, among the other reasons that he gave.
	My Amendment No. 37 is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. It seeks to involve those in the care system concerned with children who are looked after by local authorities. In particular, I think that it is important to involve birth parents, where it is possible and safe to do so. Many children in the care system return to their birth parents, and it is important that the parents are kept in touch with the process. Birth parents often feel excluded and frustrated by the system.
	I shall give an example. A mother with mild learning difficulties might have her child placed in the care of the maternal grandmother. It may be a marginal case, and one would hope that the child could soon return to the mother's responsibility. It would help the mother not to lose hope that she might one day be fully responsible for her child again, if she were involved in the process and could feel that people were still interested in asking about the fate of her child and the decisions taken about the child. A mother in the process of recovering from alcohol or drug addiction could be kept involved with her children and in any important decisions about them.
	The issue also highlights the need for a designated senior teacher at the school, as the guidance on the education of looked-after children recommends. That teacher could liaise and would be well aware of the situation in the local authority, so that, even at short notice, he or she could think, "Who shall I speak to? Who might it be helpful to contact in the short period before the inspection?". There might be a good deal of utility in that. Many foster carers and many people who work in residential childcare are concerned about the quality of the educational experience that the looked-after child receives in school. They might have something useful to say to the inspectors, if it were possible to involve them at short notice.
	It is a probing amendment. I am seeking information about what happens currently and what might happen in the future with children who are looked after by local authorities. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Hanningfield: Amendment No. 38, which is in the group, is similar to the two amendments that have been spoken to.
	The key change in this Bill from the one that it follows so closely—the 1996 Act—is the scrapping of the meeting between the inspector and the parents of children at the school being inspected. We believe that that is a retrograde step and will act as a further disenfranchisement of parents.
	The Explanatory Notes point out that such a meeting would be impractical, as we heard from other speakers, given the intention to reduce notice of inspections. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that it is neither impractical nor impossible. The two sides—inspectors and parents—have a great deal to offer each other. Both have valuable insights and information that it would be advantageous to share. Inspectors can get a true picture of the wider environment in which the school operates, including any ongoing concerns that might not be understood or spotted in an all-school environment. It is very important that parents are involved.
	It is an easy opt-out to deem such a step impractical. We simply do not agree that that should happen. It would be relatively straightforward for the head teacher in a school, once he or she knows that an inspection is to be carried out, with the support of the appropriate authority, to set up a meeting between the interested parents and the inspection team. Parents are well aware of the importance of an Ofsted inspection, so attracting interested individuals would not be a problem. The intention behind our amendment is to leave it to the discretion of the head to arrange a suitable meeting.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I want to make three points about Amendment No. 39. First, I support the thrust and intention of the amendments grouped with mine. I spoke about that at Second Reading, so I shall not repeat my arguments about the importance of the parents' role in the process.
	I noticed in passing, with some wry amusement, that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, managed to identify a school that has not had an Ofsted inspection for some time. No doubt, Ofsted will take note. He may be thanked for that; he may not. We shall see.
	My second point is that the amendment presses the importance of a meeting with the governors. There are two reasons for that. The first has already been alluded to in the debate: the governing body includes parent representatives. As a fail-safe position, the amendment would be one way of ensuring that some parents—those elected to represent the parents—met the inspection team. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, reasonably pointed out, it may be that the governing body is weak and the parents on it not very active or particularly representative.
	That brings me to the other reason why a meeting with the governing body is important. If the governing body is not strong and active and playing its part in the school, that fact needs to be drawn to its attention. Who could do that well, other than the inspectors with whom it should properly meet? The governing bodies of schools have had their responsibilities increased over the years, and rightly so. They can be a major source of support to the head teacher and other teachers and a major source of policy making in the school. The responsibility that they have for being accountable to the wider community is wholly in line with the intention of the Bill. Hence the importance that my colleagues and I attach to a meeting with the governors.
	Governors ought to be available on short notice for such an important matter, but we suggest a failsafe position, so that, if they were not, it should not be a reason for not meeting the chairman. Whoever chairs the governing body ought to be available for such a session. Not only should the chair of the governing bodies and the other governors available be given the opportunity to meet the inspection team, it should be drawn be drawn to their intention as a responsibility. How else will they realise what their responsibilities are and ensure that those responsibilities are taken seriously by the department, the parents and the community at large? How else will they face up realistically to the report that will be made on their school? They ought to see the whites of the inspectors' eyes early and know how serious they are about their business.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I speak to Amendment No. 39 and support very much the intentions behind the other amendments in this group about which I shall say something later.
	It is pretty clear that the intention behind the 1998 and 2000 Education Acts was to give greater responsibility to governors. At the moment what is being put forward is a reduction in the involvement of governors in this particularly important aspect of the inspection of schools. I am with those who are in favour of shorter inspections.
	There are three reasons why I, and others, such as the National Association of Governors and Managers, which has just changed its name, and the NUT, are not entirely happy with what is proposed. My first reason is that during the passage of the Children Bill many of us argued for schools and the governors being involved in the delivery of children's well-being and, turning to the comments of my noble friend Lord Listowel, particularly that of the most vulnerable children.
	There are requirements in the Bill for inspections to report on the school's contribution to the well-being of pupils. Secondly, therefore, it is more important that there is a meeting with the governors while the inspection takes place.
	My third reason is a little different. All schools are now to have rather more responsibility for their budgets over a period of three years, which is excellent. There will be a huge range of different sorts of schools under the Government's plans. They will have greater responsibility once they have been approved as a specialist school or an academy. The governors' role will be even more important and, therefore, they should have a much greater say and be spoken to when inspection takes place. Those are my reasons for very much wanting to support a greater role for governors in the important inspection procedures.
	As regards the parental side, I support very much what has been said, particularly the extremely effective and persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is not good enough to say that, because parents do not attend meetings at the inspections, that is a reason for cancelling them. Sadly, it is more likely to be an indication that the school is not doing enough to communicate with parents. It may be that that side should be considered.
	At a time when the Government are recognising the issues rather more effectively—and I note, sadly, the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who is so passionate about parental involvement in all aspects of children's upbringing—it is a backward step not to have this subject included. As regards the idea that parents are likely to feel included by filling in a series of forms, even if they have the capacity to understand them, that is a laughable suggestion. What is needed is a demonstration of how a closer relationship between parents and schools can be achieved, which is increasingly recognised as necessary for getting the very best out of children in attainment and well-being. How is that to be achieved? What is suggested now appears to be a step backwards towards earlier days in my time when there was a notice outside the school saying. "No parents beyond this point". We need to watch that danger.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I offer my support for all these amendments, although my name supports only Amendment No. 38. There is a great body of research that shows the importance of the relationship which children sense between their home values and the school. The more a child feels that there is continuity of understanding between the parents—or whichever one it is living with—and the teacher, the more the child's work improves and it thrives as an individual. Sadly, the reverse is true. The more the child senses that the parents and the parental home are at variance with the values and understanding of the school, the more the child's work is liable to suffer. The visible example of the parents being brought in at a meeting at which the performance of the school is being discussed with the involvement of the parents is an immensely valuable part of the inspection experience.
	Similarly, governors have had more and more responsibility placed on them in the past 10 years. Being a member of a governing body now is quite a scary thing. The legislation for which you are responsible is pretty formidable. The idea that we take away the valuable meeting between the inspectors and those who are in law responsible for the overall educational character of the school is very retrograde.
	I have been asking myself why the Government—and, presumably, the current chief inspector—are in favour of this change in the arrangements. My own experience in all three roles as a parent at my children's schools when inspected, as an inspector, and as a governor of one or two schools is that such meetings have been very positive and contributed to the inspection and to the long-term well-being of the school.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, there may be anxiety on the part of the Government and the inspectorate that the short timescale of notice is not enough to allow attendance to happen. I agree with the noble Lord entirely that that is not the case. Parents and governors will make themselves available and will turn up. Perhaps not all of them will attend, but certainly enough to be a representative group. Ministers tended not to want to accept any amendments at the first meeting of the Committee on Tuesday, but I hope that they will take this amendment away and think very seriously about reinstating the meetings.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, to expand on a point that he raised. I am grateful for his support. I do not usually enjoy much support on education matters from those Benches. It is an enjoyable position to be in. Amendment No. 38 appears to leave to the discretion of the head teacher whether a meeting should take place between parents and the chief inspector. In those few schools where there are real problems over leadership, does the noble Lord accept that the head teacher will often discourage such meetings taking place? Will the noble Lord reconsider leaving the matter solely at the discretion of the head teacher?

Lord Hanningfield: In tabling this amendment we felt very strongly that 99 per cent of head teachers would want the parents involved in the inspection. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was very persuasive. In a school where there are considerable problems with the head teacher, there might be difficulties as regards him wanting to have other people involved. That is a point the noble Lord made in his speech. However, I would be most concerned if the situation were not apparent to bodies other than parents, such as the local authority. That would ensure that the point was covered.
	We have tabled our amendment because we felt that it might be one which the Government could accept. It is not as strong as the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and given that it is slightly milder in tone, we hope that it will be accepted.

Lord Lucas: I support Amendment No. 39. Given the consequences of an inspection, how can a school be inspected without consulting or even seeing a body as important as the board of governors? To leave the governors out of the consideration seems entirely inappropriate.
	I also support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. If you were trying to form a picture of a business, this would be like not talking to the customers. It would be similar to sticking close to the factory, watching what goes out of the door and assuming that everything is all right outside. If something is causing concern in a school, it is more than likely to be revealed in the parents. It is much easier to find out something subtle, unusual or difficult to elicit from the ordinary procedures and school records by talking to the parents. As the Minister knows, I built a business on those grounds. You find out a lot of things from parents which would never be revealed by simply going around the school. Meeting parents is an absolutely crucial element when trying to understand how a school is working.
	I turn to the questionnaire. It will have to be sent out with the agency of the school, because there is no other way in which it will happen. The questionnaires will have to be returned to the inspectors before they leave the premises. It is not possible to deal with a disparate collection of responses without having an opportunity to discuss them with the school. If this is to be done within the timescale, there may as well be a meeting of the parents involved in the process.
	Beyond anything else, a meeting would allow parents to express points that are not raised in the questionnaire. I have never seen one that asked the right questions. It cannot be done in a one-size-fits-all-but-it-must-fit-on-to-two-sides-of-A4 exercise. Such questionnaires always ask the questions you are not interested in. Moreover, because the questions go through so many committees, they will be totally anodyne and lacking any point. There will never be a question such as, "What is the history teaching like?". If there are real concerns, they are likely to be much more focused than anything that would ever appear in a questionnaire.
	However, at least the questionnaire may act as a prompt. I approve of it because it may encourage parents to recognise that they have a real role to play. But for goodness' sake give them a meeting because that is where the real information will come out.

Baroness Andrews: We have had a good debate on an important group of amendments. My noble friend has already told me to stop nodding, but there is much that the Government can agree with in the spirit and intent of what has been said. I hope to be able to demonstrate that in my response. I want also to address the many concerns that have been expressed, such as time factors, the imperatives of the new system and what impact they will have on the processes and the people involved.
	I shall start by addressing the general amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which sets out the stall for the group. We welcome the positive statements from all around the Committee about the vital roles played by all the different participants in a school when it comes to inspection. As each amendment has been spoken to, warm tributes have been made to those roles, which I wholly endorse. We do not take any of those for granted and acknowledge their value in the year-on-year improvements in performance we have seen in schools.
	The current position is that the School Inspections Act 1996 places a requirement on schools to arrange a meeting with parents and inspectors, and requires inspectors to consult the appropriate authority about the inspection. However, there is nothing in the statute about consulting pupils, head teachers or staff. That is something on which we shall reflect. However, we know that in the past inspectors have consulted widely with all the relevant parties. That has always been extremely important. Without that, we would not now have a school inspection system. However, the question of why we should put certain provisions into statute has been raised.
	I shall address first the issue of head teachers and staff before turning to the role of parents. We do not believe in general that the amendment is necessary because—recalling our debate on Tuesday—of self-evaluation, which lies at the heart of the new system. Self-evaluation means looking at the way things are done at each level within the school: teaching, learning, organisation, leadership and the relationships between teachers and the whole range of people involved in educating and bringing up children.
	The inspection will start with a professional engagement between the inspection team, the head teacher, his senior management team and the staff. Inspectors will examine the self-evaluation exercise, looking at how it relates to their experience of what is going on in the school during their time on the premises. They will ensure that the initial statistical and other data concur with what they find. They will then sit with the senior management team to explore and challenge the self-evaluation. They will work alongside and engage with independent members of staff in particular areas of the curriculum to understand what people are actually telling them about what is going on. During the event, there will be similar engagements with pupils and parents. The aim is to verify the evidence set out in the self-evaluation summary, ensuring that it accords with what people without any vested interests tell the inspectors about their experience of the school and how it is delivering.
	That is a fundamental principle. One must involve the child and the parent at all stages. Each of the views gathered will be used to inform the final judgments that the inspector puts into his report. The inspector will provide verbal feedback at the end of the inspection, at which the governing body should be represented, with the draft report following shortly after. Where it has not been possible to meet the chair of governors, Ofsted intends to provide every opportunity for the chair to speak to the lead inspector at first hand. At that point additional evidence can be brought forward. Time will be available to correct any factual mistakes.
	I am not talking about theory in my response, but about what is now being tried and tested in the 100 pilot inspections. The results of those are constantly being fed back to Ofsted so that the process itself can be refined and improved. To date we have had, as I said, 100 pilot inspections in which the head, staff, parents and governors have each had a full opportunity to take part in what is after all a defining moment for the school. Is it working? Noble Lords would expect me to say that it is, but not only does Ofsted believe that it is going well; schools themselves are telling us so. Satisfaction ratings, which are measured independently of the inspection team, show us that almost every school feels that the report resulting from the pilot inspection is a fair and accurate reflection. Almost 100 per cent of those schools taking part have expressed that they were very happy with both the process and the final report.
	But do not mistake this for complacency. We are looking to improve on those findings. I shall explain how that is to be done, particularly in relation to the points raised about governors. We are in a process of iteration about improvement.
	First, I shall address the issue of parents. There is a clear sense among noble Lords that we are somehow giving parents less or even inadequate opportunity to make their views known. Let me reassure noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lord Hunt, that that is absolutely not the case. The whole thrust of what we have been trying to do with parents in our school improvement policies over the past seven years is to bring them into a proper relationship with schools—not an occasional meeting to talk about the curriculum or visits if the child is in trouble. We want to see proper relationships based on continuing dialogue. We see that as part of the process we are now engaged in with the inspection system.
	In response to Amendments Nos. 36, 37, and 38, we want to strengthen parents' hands. We would not make impracticality an excuse, but there are issues regarding time that we have to address, which is now being done in the pilots. We are looking for improvement. However, it will be difficult for all parents to meet an inspector during an event that schools will know is taking place only at very short notice, and which might last for no more than two days. It would be a burden for both schools and parents to arrange meetings with a representative number of parents at such short notice. Indeed, schools might complain that on the one hand we are giving them less notice and asking them to do more. However, they will continue to be under a duty to notify parents of an inspection, and that has certainly proved possible in the pilot.
	We should also remember that in Ofsted's consultation parents were strongly in favour of reduced or no-notice inspection. They also wanted to continue with the requirement that all schools must arrange a meeting, which is often poorly attended and does not necessarily contribute to the cycle of school improvement. So we believe that this would not add to the inspection's findings and outcomes.
	The latest, very recent, figures show that attendance at pre-inspection meetings for parents averages 16 in a primary school and 30 in a secondary school. That could be 15 families out of 300 or 400 in a secondary school. We may deplore the reluctance of parents to come to these meetings but the reality is that this is not a very efficient or humane way to engage people in this process. Given the views received from parents we have sought to find better ways of encouraging their participation.
	I intend to talk about the questionnaire and address any practical problems but the most important thing I wish to say is that this has been worked through with parents themselves. We are being kept informed by the pilot schemes and are working with focus groups who are helping to develop a friendly and accessible questionnaire. We should not patronise parents by expecting them not to be able to fill it in. Parents are extremely well used to dealing with forms, not least on the web.
	This questionnaire will be something that the parents themselves will own. I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Questionnaire-creating is a science as well as an art. One has to get the language right and ask awkward as well as comfortable questions. If parents are involved in that process we can trust them to do that properly. The schools will circulate that questionnaire and it will be returned to Ofsted.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked me how this would be done. Schools will issue the questionnaire as part of the notification of parents provided by Ofsted. The questionnaire will be returned via the school but it will be the inspectors who analyse it. We do not anticipate any additional burden on them because there is no evidence of that in the pilots. There has been a good response and we believe we are getting it right. The questionnaire will be in minority languages as well as English and I hope that will encourage the participation of parents. The letter within which the questions are presented will provide details of how parents can make contact with the inspection team.
	What can we do and what else are we doing to involve parents? Parents can provide comments on a confidential basis directly to the inspection team, who will use them as part of their evidence-gathering. We are working with parents' groups to understand how best to manage that process in the light of the shorter notice. However, let me stress that questionnaires are not the only option.
	I was interested in the exchanges between my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. During those exchanges the Government were asked if we would retain the discretion of schools to retain meetings. Yes, Ofsted will encourage schools who wish to do so to arrange a meeting. There is nothing to stop the head teacher from setting up a meeting if there is demand for it. That does not need to be specified in law. I have an interesting example of one school in the pilot where 400 parents signed and submitted a petition to Ofsted complaining about the school prior to the inspection. That was part of the process.
	We all know that some head teachers are more charismatic leaders than others. We know that some are reluctant to meet parents and engage with them but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield said, there are ways to encourage them to do that, not least through the governing bodies or the parents' associations themselves. I believe that parents and schools will take up this opportunity. I would argue that we are looking to the best of both worlds. It will be a more systematic means of gathering evidence. It also be more democratic since the questionnaire will go to every parent and every parent will have the opportunity to respond and at the same time have an opportunity for face-to-face meetings. This is a system whereby schools are free to build on their strengths and reflect on the way in which they manage their relationships.
	Turning to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, he will know that, following the Children Act, local authorities have a duty to raise educational achievement and ensure that foster carers, children in care and key workers are fully responsible and fully engaged with the school. We want them to come along, not only to parents' meetings but at every possible opportunity. The designated teacher responsible for looked-after children has a duty to ensure that these key workers are fully engaged in the process. While I am very sympathetic to his amendment, I should point out that we are putting a whole raft of guidelines in place. We are looking constantly at whether these are robust and I believe that we are getting better at this. The national minimum standards on fostering will have something in the placement agreement about these necessary meetings between key workers.
	Several noble Lords spoke about inspectors meeting with the governing body. We do not intend in any way to reduce the scope, the competence or the opportunity for the governing bodies to be fully involved not just in a meeting with inspectors but in the whole process of self-evaluation. This will not work unless parents, children and governors are fully engaged in that process. Self-evaluation is about ownership. I should point out that the amendment has a flaw because it would require the appropriate authority—in most cases the governing body itself—to arrange a meeting with the governors of the school. I am sure the purpose of the amendment was to place a duty on the chief inspector to meet with the school governors.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, talked about the greater role of inspectors in auditing. However, development to inspection forms a key part of the strategy for accountability in the new relationship with schools. There will be no diminution of the principles underpinning the role of governing bodies. I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, that governors have a key role to play in the self-evaluation process. They will contribute to the process of gathering evidence as well as being responsible for signing off the self-evaluation form. That way they know whether there are any discrepancies.
	This annual process will be linked to the planning and improvement cycle. One great burden on the governing body is how to be fully engaged with such a cycle. They will take forward any actions arising from the inspections. This is a massive challenge so we have to ensure that they are clear about any essential outcomes. In recognition of this, under the new arrangements, governor representation at the feedback meeting with the head teacher and the senior team will be standard. Lead inspectors will be able to invite a governors' representative to attend the feedback meeting. That is in itself a major improvement. The current system provides that governors can be represented only at the discretion of the registered inspectors. In the majority of cases no governor is currently present at feedback sessions.
	Members of the Committee were concerned about meetings with the inspectors and governors. We recognise that the issue of short-notice inspection raises a challenge. The difficulties are not insurmountable. I am able to say that because in the pilots, during the 100 or so trial inspections that have taken place, governors have participated in every single inspection. Ofsted has used a variety of methods to secure that, including telephone discussions if that is more convenient. We have been monitoring this process and have insisted that inspectors meet with governors to discuss their role. This has happened as the trial inspection process has developed.
	We have also asked governors about matters arising from the standard evaluation. When the school is contacted about its inspection we ask that the chair of the governors be available at the beginning and end of the inspection. We expect governors to meet with inspectors on every inspection. However, neither we nor Ofsted are complacent. We are watching the trials and effectiveness of these arrangements.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have not participated in the debate but I have listened very carefully to it. The Minister referred to 400 parents who protested in advance of an inspection. Did the inspectors meet representatives of those 400? What was the further outcome, as it were, of that protest?

Baroness Andrews: The school was judged to require special measures. Although I do not have much detailed background, I should imagine that the parents involved wished to draw quite a number of different aspects of the school to the inspectors' attention. I would have thought that almost certainly there would have been a meeting. I shall check on that and write to all noble Lords.
	In conclusion, I hope that I have addressed every issue raised. If I have not, I shall certainly write to noble Lords. It has been a high-quality debate. It is always a pleasure to read Hansard the following day and to reflect on the quality of the arguments. In the mean time, I hope the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: I was pleased that the Minister basically agreed with our amendment that heads could call a meeting of parents. She went on to give several instances of where Ofsted could require meetings—for example, with the chairman of governors. Will this requirement be given to the school by Ofsted in notes of guidance during a pre-inspection phase, or something like that? Obviously, if a note goes to a school saying that a meeting with parents is desirable, the school is likely to arrange it. Although the noble Baroness has said several times that this is desirable, we will feel much more comfortable if we know how the school will know that, what will be the process and how it will happen.
	There have been several references to the 100 trial schools. Of course—I have been trying to make a quick calculation—100 schools is not even 0.5 per cent of all the schools in the country. I suspect that the 100 schools were fairly good ones which volunteered for the process. Perhaps the noble Baroness will let the Committee know at some stage how those 100 schools were chosen. They represent a very, very small percentage of the total number of schools in the country and I do not know whether one can make a judgment on such a small sample. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell the Committee about the process of Ofsted alerting a school to what might or might not be desirable.

Baroness Andrews: The answer is yes, there will certainly be a full statement, which will set out in detail what is expected. Of course 100 schools in relation to the 20,000 schools, or whatever, in England and Wales is a small number. But they are a representative sample—they were carefully chosen—and come from 15 LEAs. This summer there will be a further 100 in the rolling pilot. If the noble Lord would like me to do so, I shall be happy to send him more information about the nature of the pilots.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful response. I did not know that the national minimum standard ensured that foster carers have a duty to be involved in school processes. That is welcome information.
	The Minister referred to the designated teachers in a school for looked-after children and the important role that they play in ensuring that foster carers and residential childcare workers are involved. However, let me draw her attention to what is said in the Social Exclusion Unit's recent report, A better education for children in care. It states:
	"Evidence about the impact of designated teachers is mixed. Some schools allow non-contact time for designated teachers to liaise with other agencies . . . Elsewhere, designated teachers have few or no additional resources and can struggle to reconcile their different roles, particularly where they have to combine teaching and advocacy functions".
	It has certainly been my experience that while these teachers should be senior teachers, they can be teachers with a very low level of experience.
	I thank the Minister for her response but it has not entirely allayed my concerns in this matter.

Baroness Andrews: Let me reply to those two points. First, as to the fostering service, I would refer the noble Earl to standard 13 of the national minimum standards. It is not quite as specific as I said. Standard 13.3 states:
	"The fostering service requires foster carers to contribute to the assessment of the child's educational needs and progress for the planning and review process. The fostering service helps the foster carer to contribute to the delivery of any personal education plan".
	Standard 13.4 states:
	"The foster carer's role in school contact, e.g., parents evenings, open days, discussions with teachers, in conjunction with the birth parent where appropriate and in line with the care plan, is clearly laid out in the placement agreement".
	As to designated teachers, I know that there is room for improvement. We are looking at that issue in the whole context of improvement in the delivery of quality to looked-after children.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: Whether correctly or not, I attempted formally to move Amendment No. 39 and it is right that I should for the record formally withdraw it.
	Perhaps I may make two comments. First, I appreciate the answer of the Minister and the stress that it puts on the work of the governors. Secondly, I leave one thought for further reflection. The emphasis has been on the rights of Ofsted and the processes that the chief inspector has the right to go through. If I were a governor of a school about to be inspected, I would want the right to see the governors, and this is one of the ways of building that into the system. I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on that.

The Earl of Listowel: I apologise for intervening once more. Can the noble Baroness provide the Committee with more information about the experience in the pilots of parental involvement with the inspectors? What value did parents and inspectors place on these meetings? It would be helpful to have that.

Baroness Andrews: I shall certainly try to do that.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her careful comments on the issue. I hope that she does not really think it was patronising of me to raise the issue of low literacy and minority languages. It is not patronising but realistic in a situation where some schools have as little as 2 per cent of pupils who have English as a first language. But I very much welcome her statement that minority languages would be used where appropriate for the questionnaires.
	I thank noble Lords on all sides of the Committee for their support on the issue of parents and governors, in particular, and the importance of them being properly consulted during an, albeit short, inspection. However, I stress that our amendment also included heads, teachers and the children. Although I accept what the Minister said about the professional engagement between inspectors and teachers that occurs at the beginning of the process and the self-evaluation of teachers, I would point out that our amendment contains the two very important words "have regard". The process the Minister described does not necessarily include that. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the pupils are the customers at the school, and you would not evaluate a retailer without talking to its customers. That is very important.
	The Minister's main argument against the amendment is that it is not necessary; it happens anyway and so there is no need to put it into statute. I believe that passing legislation is often an opportunity to send out a message about the importance of things. Clearly the Committee believes that it is extremely important that the opinions of the various stakeholder groups should be fully taken into account during an inspection.
	But we are in a new situation; we are legislating for a new kind of inspection. In these very short inspections we are asking the inspectors to do a great deal in a very short time. That is why it is necessary to specify that they consult these various stakeholder groups during the course of an inspection.
	I welcome the statement of the Minister that heads will keep the discretion to have a meeting with head teachers, but if it is not in statute, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, there may well be very dominant heads who really do not want to encourage contact between the inspector and the parents and they will not use that discretion to have a meeting.
	For those various reasons, we need to legislate because of the change in the inspection regime. We need to make it very clear how important we think it is that all the various stakeholder groups are consulted and that the inspectors have regard to their views.
	I shall not press the amendment but, as the feeling of the Committee is so strong, we may well return to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Turner of Camden: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 3, line 41, after "inspection" insert "(including an age-appropriate report for registered pupils)"

Baroness Turner of Camden: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35, 45, 62, 75, 98 and 99, which are listed in my name in this group. At the outset, I declare an interest. I was for many years a trustee and council member of the well-known charity, Save the Children. These amendments have been suggested to me by Save the Children and I am indebted to it for briefing on the subject. The amendments in this group all deal with the same subject and it therefore seemed sensible to deal with them together.
	Save the Children has a long history of working in a participative way with children and young people and has been involved in many statutory organisations, including schools, social services, local authorities and central government. It takes its steer from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under Articles 12 and 13 of that convention, children and young people have the right to express an opinion, to have that opinion taken into account and to express their own views, unless that would violate the rights of others.
	Save the Children believes that the full and meaningful participation of children and young people in school inspections is necessary. It is important that their views are taken into account if an inspection is to be based on a full understanding of how a school is performing and meeting the needs of the community it services. Information regarding the purpose of the inspection, and child-friendly reports following it, would help children and young people to become more involved in the process. Independent inspectors, lay inspectors and Her Majesty's Inspectorate would benefit greatly from training in children's participation. There are resources available on many different methods of participation and consultation that could easily be developed for use by inspectors and incorporated in their initial training or in their professional development. Children and young people could be trained to form part of the inspection team, which is a model that is used by the Social Services Inspectorate. The formal assessment of inspectors could include particular reference to their knowledge of involving children and young people in school inspections. Inspections should involve a broad range of children and young people in the process and should include ethnic minority, refugee and asylum-seeking children.
	The aim of these amendments is to ensure that there is a participative role for children and young people. I am sure that this would be to the benefit not only of the children and young people themselves but it would assist the inspectors and the inspection process. I hope what is proposed in this group of amendments, for which Amendment No. 23 is a paving amendment, will receive favourable consideration.
	Amendment No. 23 requires an age-appropriate report to be available for registered pupils. I remind the Minister that in earlier discussions she has referred to the need to involve children fully in this process and I therefore hope for a favourable response to these amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I shall speak to Amendment No. 34, which stands in my name in this group of amendments. The purpose of this small amendment is to ensure that at the beginning of the process, when parents are being notified about the timing of an inspection, pupils are also informed in their own right. If pupils are to be genuine stakeholders in the school process, they too should be informed. I am quite aware that most schools will be very anxious to tell pupils that inspectors are coming in because they want pupils to be on their best behaviour. But I want to enshrine in statute an equal right for children in the school to have that information. That would respect their dignity and their position in the school. They are vital participants in the school community. I know that it is a small matter, but it is important because it recognises the dignity and the position of the children.

Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to the noble Baronesses who have spoken on these amendments. We fully support the sentiments that have driven them. My noble friend Lady Turner has been a very powerful champion of Save the Children for many years. We fully agree with the importance of involving children and young people in the school inspection process. If we were asked what the school inspection process is for, our answer would be that it is for and about them, their education and their life chances. They have an important part to play in the inspection process. There is an increased emphasis on discussion with pupils under the new arrangements because of the vital element of self-evaluation.
	During the pilots, we looked at pupils' views about inspection. Evaluation of the pilot inspections showed that pupils thought that inspection was necessary and important for them and their schools, and that those that had the opportunity to speak to inspectors about themselves and their work enjoyed the experience. They emphasised how important it is for inspectors to ask them questions in order to understand what it is like to be a pupil at the school. That answers in part some of the questions raised by my noble friend about the nature of the inspectors' own qualifications.
	The amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, would put the duty of a school to notify registered pupils of a forthcoming inspection on the same footing as the duty to notify their parents. The noble Baroness spoke eloquently about their equal right to be so informed. It is very important that pupils should be aware that an inspection is taking place; they can hardly have been unaware in the past, given the high degree of activity and stress that they will have picked up on in some schools.
	It is important to note that the evidence is that schools do inform pupils in advance of a forthcoming inspection. Pupils need to be made aware that inspectors may want to speak to them about their experience in the classroom and out of it, in lessons, between lessons and during breaks. Schools will want to know that pupils are fully aware of what that will involve. There have been several references to the fact that pupils have been notified to make sure that they are as well behaved as they possibly could be, but in my experience that cannot be guaranteed under any circumstances. However, it is extremely important that pupils know what might be expected of them, if they have the opportunity to reflect on their experience with the inspector. I am sure that pupils are frank in what they say.
	There are numerous reasons why schools need to keep pupils informed of forthcoming inspections and we must be confident that schools will involve pupils as part of the normal business of preparing for the arrival of the inspector. When Ofsted notifies the school of a forthcoming inspection, the head teacher informs all those involved. The staff would be informed at a staff meeting. We would expect schools to arrange for pupils to be informed through the normal working mechanisms. In the pilots, we found that all pupils at the schools involved had been told about the inspection in advance. In most cases, this happened at assembly and was followed up by teachers in form time. We have to trust schools and teachers to get this right. I do not believe this practice would be enhanced through a further statutory requirement, but I understand why the noble Baroness's background and conviction make her ask for it.
	Notifying parents is a rather different matter. Parents are outside the normal day-to-day running of the school. They are not in the school and there is no vehicle for them like the assembly. That is why we have included in legislation the duty on schools to take reasonable steps to ensure that parents are notified. This is an important protection for parents. They are users, but they are not participants in the day-to-day workings of the school. So, despite my agreement with the sentiments, I am bound to resist the amendments.
	I now turn to the amendments to Clauses 5 and 15 tabled by my noble friend Lady Turner. They require age appropriate reports. I want to examine two ideas. The first is the principle of the provision of inspectors' reports to pupils and the second is age-appropriateness. I support the aim of ensuring that pupils and parents receive a version of the inspection report and are informed of the outcome of the inspection. We are working with schools in the trials to develop mechanisms for involving pupils and we are committed to producing pupil-focused feedback after each school inspection.
	One new element, for example, is that Ofsted will send to the school council a letter summarising the key outcomes of the inspection. In 80 per cent of our schools at key stage 2, we have school councils. Where no school council is yet in place—the Government are very much behind the idea of school councils—a letter will go to head teachers. That, of course, means that the schools can also cascade the information down. Let us therefore use the internal mechanisms to get it right. That approach was used, and a further evaluation of six schools involved in that process showed that all the pupils in the schools had seen the report.
	What is the situation with regard to age-appropriate reports? It is very difficult to define. We had some debate during proceedings on the Children Bill about how we would get reports written that reflected the different age levels and sophistication. In fact, the reading ages varied and were consistent with chronological ages and so on. Because of the diversity of needs across a single year group in a school with many children with special educational needs, it is very difficult to define centrally what would be an appropriate report for any particular age group.
	Ofsted is already committed to providing a pupil focused summary of the outcomes of all school inspections, which can be tailored by the school council or the school for all the pupils. That also has been trialled. Those reports are charming and do the job, and I shall be happy to provide some examples of them. For example, in a special school that was inspected during the trials, the inspectors produced a summary report for pupils in Makaton, the communication method that uses pictures instead of words, which was very popular. The letter to the school councils will tell people how they can access the full inspection report.
	I therefore fully endorse the aim of the amendment, and I should like to reassure the noble Baroness that steps are being taken to address the issue and that we shall continue to consider what can be done about it.

Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may raise one short point. The Minister pointed out that during assemblies schools will tell pupils about the inspections, about which there is an obligation to inform parents because they do not attend assemblies and are not in school every day. I accept that.
	However, what will be the situation of those pupils who perhaps may be absent due to long-term sickness and who may have a view about how well the school is coping with providing them with work in that situation? What will be the position of students who may have been bullied, causing long-term absence because of the school's failure to be sufficiently proactive and effective in preventing the bullying? Such students would have very important opinions to give to the inspectors. Unless there is a good deal of notice of the inspection, which will not be the case under the new regime, the information may not get back to them via the grapevine that there is to be an inspection.
	For those reasons in particular, I believe that it is important that the legislation should contain an obligation to inform all pupils of an intended inspection. It is very easy to inform the majority by making an announcement in assembly. However, for the kinds of pupils that I have described, it really needs to be picked up to give them the opportunity of expressing to the inspectors their views about the performance of the school.

Baroness Andrews: Those are very important points in respect of children who are absent as a result of long-term sickness or have a history of being bullied. That is not to say that that is the only or best way in which the information could be conveyed. It certainly would also be picked up through the response of parents. I should have thought that if there are concerns about such important matters, the parents themselves would want to look at the construction of the questionnaire to ensure that they are adequately reflected.
	In terms of the pupils themselves, I should have thought that, in its own guidance, Ofsted may want to make sure that schools are aware that children who have particular experiences and views are not left out of the process and are positively encouraged to come forward. However, I shall take advice and return to the noble Baroness on that.
	With regard to the publication of age-appropriate reports, as it currently stands, Clause 10 provides the chief inspector with the ability to publish any report made as part of his general or specific school inspection functions. That clause enshrines a general power, which protects one of the key principles of inspection referred to by my noble friend Lord Sutherland—that is, the power of the chief inspector to publish reports. However, it is a general power. It does not specify particular kinds of reports or thematic subjects. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to single out individual school inspection reports for pupils in that context.
	I understand that the noble Baroness wants to place on the chief inspector a duty to publish age-appropriate inspection reports, which I have addressed at some length in my reference to the school council or the school itself. The preparation of what I have described as the pupil-focused summary is simply the first step in that process. The idea is that the school council itself should become involved in tailoring those messages. We could not strictly say that any one report that Ofsted could publish would be appropriate for the pupils of the school. Furthermore, one of the key aims is to provide feedback to pupils on how their input had influenced the outcome of the inspection. Therefore, the information might not be as relevant to pupils outside the school who are not parties to the inspection process.
	We do not want to increase the burdens on schools. We need to be very careful as we discuss changes to the nature of the inspections. Because of the shorter, sharper inspections, we do not want to do anything that will overcomplicate the processes and increase the burdens. We shall continue to monitor the involvement of pupils.
	Finally, in one of the amendments under Clause 48 there is a short reference to religious education. That would place a duty on those conducting inspections of religious education in schools with a religious character to prepare an age-appropriate report and would place a duty on schools to make those reports available.
	The Churches and other faith groups have demonstrated that they, too, are keen to move towards the arrangements piloted by Ofsted for Clause 5 inspections when conducting Clause 47 inspections in future. We are working with them on those detailed mechanisms. Our expectation is that they are likely to include the preparation of pupil-focused summaries in the way that I have described. We are working with all faith groups to secure the best practice, and I hope that at Report stage we can update the House on our progress.
	With those rather lengthy explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that long and detailed explanation of the Government's position. I am glad that she at least accepts the principles involved in all these amendments.
	I understand what she said about the phrase "age appropriate". I should like to think about that and consider whether a more acceptable form of wording could be devised. She referred to pupil-focused information. I should like to take some advice on that, which perhaps would result in a better way of devising a suitable form of wording.
	I believe that these are very important issues and that some attempt should be made to try to include them on the face of the Bill. A good deal has been said in the press recently about the alienation of some pupils from the whole school system. If steps can be taken to give pupils greater involvement in every possible process, including inspections, it would help to remove the feeling of alienation that may exist in some schools. We discussed that matter yesterday when we debated in great detail the issue of discipline.
	These are very important issues and I should like to think about how they may be included on the face of the Bill. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 3, line 41, at end insert "and for it to be made available to—
	(i) the headteacher, staff, parents, pupils of that school,
	(ii) and in relation to a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school, the school's governing body or, if the school does not have a delegated budget to the local education authority, and
	(iii) in relation to a school falling within paragraphs (d) to (g) of section 5(2), the proprietor of the school"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: This is a probing amendment, which would place on the chief inspector a duty to make available a copy of an inspection report arising from Clause 5 to a school's head teacher, its staff, registered pupils and the parents of such pupils. Furthermore, it would need to be made available to a school's governing body, its LEA, or in the case of a non-maintained school to its proprietor.
	I hope that the Minister can assure us that further parts of the Bill adequately deal with what this amendment attempts to achieve. That certainly appears to be the case under Clauses 13 and 15. However, there is no specific mention of making the report available to staff, students or parents of the school that has undergone an inspection.
	Clause 6 places a duty on the appropriate authority to notify parents of a Clause 5 inspection, but it does not place a duty to make available a copy of the completed report. Surely that is an anomaly.
	Further, given that the Bill includes scrapping the meeting between parents and the inspectors—an issue on which we have had a most productive debate—is it not crucial that we do everything that we possibly can to ensure that parents are engaged in the inspection process, especially in their knowledge and understanding of a completed report?
	Clauses 13 and 16 place a duty on both the appropriate authority and the proprietor of the school to make a copy of the report available to any interested member of the public. That is not the same as including in the Bill named individuals, such as staff and parents, who must be made aware that such a report exists.
	The amendment simply attempts to widen the number of key groups that in our view have the most to gain from an Ofsted report. Surely there can be no harm in including them in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: I hope that I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks. Clauses 13 and 15 provide that inspection reports are made available to all stakeholders. The provisions are wide, providing for the chief inspector to send copies of reports to specified persons and for the appropriate authority in the case of maintained schools, and the proprietor for non-maintained schools, to send copies of the full inspection report to parents and to any other persons who ask to see it. Staff have access to the report through the mechanisms of the school. All inspections are on Ofsted's website.
	With regard to pupils, as I said, we are trying a new approach whereby pupils will get their own feedback, following inspection, which is tailored to them. We are involving the schools council in that.
	I believe that the scope of the clauses meets the considerations expressed by the noble Baroness. If we have more to say on this issue, I shall do so in writing.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for her answer and look forward to receiving further information if she sends it to me. I am reassured by her answer, so beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 3, line 41, at end insert ", and
	( ) to establish a complaints procedure by which the appropriate body for a maintained school or the proprietor of a non-maintained school may complain about the conduct of any section 5 inspection or the findings of the report of a section 5 inspection"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 25, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 51, 59, 73 and 86.
	All the amendments deal with establishing a complaints procedure in relation to inspection reports. There are two different sets of amendments. Amendment No. 25 and its two consequential amendments—Amendments Nos. 59 and 73—were suggested by the National Association of Head Teachers to provide a more generalised complaints procedure. The main aim is to establish some form of complaints procedure. The more specific proposals in Amendments Nos. 51 and 86, which duplicate the system in Wales, come from the National Union of Teachers and are more detailed. Both sets of amendments establish the principle that there should be a complaints procedure, and both would establish a less cumbersome and fairer complaints procedure than currently exists.
	It is worth reflecting on the present procedures. The Ofsted guidance on complaints procedure is as follows:
	"If your complaint is fully or partially upheld"—
	that is by the inspectors themselves—
	"the response will include an apology, an explanation and, if necessary, an indication of what steps have or will be taken to put the matters right. Where allegations or complaints are not upheld the response will say so and explain why. Every effort will be made to reach authoritative conclusions. However, where the Head of Division is presented with two conflicting views and there is no compelling evidence to support either account, it is likely that the outcome of the investigation will be inconclusive.
	If you remain dissatisfied with OFSTED's response, you will be informed of your right of recourse to the OFSTED Complaints Adjudicator (OCA). The OCA provides an external and independent element to the procedures and may only accept a case once OFSTED's internal procedures have been exhausted. The OCA reviews the handling of complaints but cannot recommend that the judgements of HMI or of additional inspectors are changed".
	An Ofsted complaints adjudicator does not deal with judgments nor with the inspection outcomes. He or she investigates not the complaint but how the complaint was handled. Even when the Ofsted complaints adjudicator produces a report, it is discussed with Ofsted, rather than the school itself.
	In October 1999, Elaine Rassaby, the then complaints adjudicator, stated publicly that the process of complaining was so burdensome that many teachers simply gave up and did not bother. She also described how the office was not truly independent. She was appointed and funded by Ofsted itself.
	To some extent, one of the complaints is that Ofsted is both judge and jury. The issue of complaints was raised on Second Reading by a number of people, including the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who I regret is not here today. He was anxious that a form of complaints procedure should be established. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
	"Ofsted is currently developing a new complaints handling procedure to accompany the system of inspection. The procedure will make it clear that judgments about inspections can be challenged and will be considered seriously and fully".
	If that is the case, it is welcome, but the amendment would be a further guarantee. The noble Lord went on to say:
	"There will also be an independent complaints adjudicator who will be able to examine complaints about the way in which the inspection has been conducted and the way in which Ofsted has handled such complaints".—[Official Report, 13/12/04; col. 1152.]
	By that, the Minister appeared to imply that it was a new initiative. As there is already an independent complaints adjudicator for Ofsted and the adult learning inspector, it would be interesting to know precisely what is intended. We question why there is nothing in the Bill to guarantee the continued existence of the complaints adjudicator if such a role is to continue.
	Our main concern is with the current role of the adjudicator. It is extremely limited, and nothing in the Minister's statement suggests that that will change. Apparently the adjudicator investigates complaints that Ofsted has failed to resolve using its internal complaints procedure. There are about 20 of those a year. Will the Minister say how the complaints procedure that is currently being developed will shape up? What ideas are there? What will be the role of the independent adjudicator? Will it remain as at present, or will it be expanded? Will there be slightly less of Ofsted being both judge and jury? Will the complaints procedure really be independent? That is what we hope for.
	The amendments have come from the head teachers' union and the National Union of Teachers, who are concerned that under present procedures there is not a fair method of appeal.
	Given that we are in a new era and these new inspections will be short and sharp, at the moment the assumption is that the report will be published within three weeks. Yet, schools and teachers can be damned by those reports. It is vital that there is a fair complaints procedure. These amendments aim to achieve that. I beg to move.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I support the amendment and shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 60, 74, 84, 89 and 90. I note with interest that the intention of Amendment No. 46 is similar to a number of amendments tabled by noble Lords from all opposition Benches. I shall own up now to say that our amendment is undoubtedly the weakest in drafting terms.
	With tongue firmly in cheek, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that before we reach the next stage of the Bill, he, too, might attempt to draft his own version of the amendment. It would complete not only a full set from all sides of the House, but, given the evident strength of feeling, I suspect that we shall return to this issue throughout the passage of the Bill.
	I have had a number of meetings with interested parties in which a common concern emerged that, under the reform system, there is an inadequate appeals process. The Government intend to speed up the inspection process and we welcome that. However, it should not be at the cost of putting into the public domain any reports that are manifestly inaccurate or unduly misleading. In speeding up the inspection process, there must be suitable safeguards to ensure that the school has a reasonable opportunity to comment on the draft report before wider publication. Careers of staff and, particularly, head teachers can be changed for ever with the publication of an Ofsted report—not to mention the impact upon the morale, and the entire future of, a school. That aspect should not be rushed.
	Amendment No. 46 would therefore ensure that the chief inspector could not publish an inspection report unless its contents had been agreed with the education establishment in question. We are trying to achieve a difficult balance, and, perhaps, that amendment would not quite address the issue, as it should. We are trying not to hamper the chief inspector in passing a suitable judgment on a school, but merely to ensure that inaccuracies are corrected. Equally, the school should have the right to appeal when it believes that the inspection has been conducted in a less than professional manner. Maybe that could be achieved by a longer interval between inspection and publication, to allow time for appeals to be conducted more discretely.
	Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create by regulation an independent adjudicator who could examine any difference of opinion between the chief inspector and the education establishment regarding contested reports and would report on that, as necessary. The chief inspector would then have to take note and act upon any pronouncements from the adjudicator before publishing the final version of the report. We believe that this amendment would create an important appeal system that would help to guarantee the accuracy and fairness of inspection reports.
	Amendments Nos. 60 and 74 are consequential to Amendment No. 46 and ensure that neither the relevant LEA nor proprietor of a school were able to make available to the general public, as specified under Clauses 13 and 15, a copy of the report if there was disagreement between the school and chief inspector before the adjudicator had reported and his remarks had been acted upon.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 84, 89 and 90 would have exactly the same effect as the amendments that I have described, but in relation to Wales and to the Welsh Assembly.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: In speaking to Amendment No. 49 in this group, I pray in aid the support of my absent colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who would wish to make some points that I shall try to describe.
	Amendment No. 49 follows others in this group in seeking a fair and clear appeals procedure and we support the thrust of them. This amendment takes on board the difficulty of encapsulating all that should be on the face of the Bill, so we seek a requirement to have regulations dealing with this matter, which may have to be altered from time to time as we learn through experience. One of the points of our amendment has already been made—the damage done to a school by a bad report can be considerable. As the chief inspector in post when the first school in England was declared by an HMI report to be failing, I do not flinch from speaking the truth, if that is the reality.
	On the other hand—such points were made by the noble Lords, Lord Dearing, Lord Tombs, and others, in a debate about Ofsted in September last year—I am aware of the damage that a report can do. If that report is not wholly fair and accurate, the damage is almost infinite, because no retraction will receive the same publicity as the first negative report. Hence, our amendment reflects our keenness for a requirement that a report should not be published until any reasonable appeal or correction in terms of accuracy is received by the chief inspector. We are moderate in what we say thereafter, but it is vital that the chief inspector has total confidence in the report, which means giving a school the opportunity to point out errors in procedure.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 84, 89 and 90, to which I have added my name, although they share the imperfections that my noble friend on the Front Bench attributed to the similar system of appeal that is proposed for England by my noble friends. Amendment No. 49, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, may well be more appropriate, although I am not sure that even that achieves perfection.
	The whole point of inspection is to appreciate what a school is doing right and to identify where it is performing inadequately and going wrong. The latter element may become hurtful, especially when the identified defects are obvious to outsiders, but not so obvious to those who become over-familiar with them and ignore them. Criticism of that kind is inevitable in any inspection report and so, arguably, is the hurt that goes with it, unless some special steps are taken to soften the tone of criticism.
	I was reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the NUT has referred to the punitive nature of past inspections. That punitive element is certainly present in any kind of critical inspection report. Our real concern is the possibility of gross error or misjudgement by inspectors. We are all human and mistakes can be made which appear in reports. That becomes more likely as inspections become shorter and sharper. When such mistakes occur, they can be grossly damaging to the reputation of schools.
	Ideally, schools should have prior knowledge of the contents of inspectors' reports, and steps have been taken to ensure that schools are aware of the drafts. Whether they should actually approve of reports before their publication is a totally different matter. I think that it will be very difficult to secure such approval. But if there are serious errors in a report, schools should have some remedy. They should be able to remonstrate with the inspectors at an early stage and, if necessary, appeal to a higher authority.
	The higher authority seems to be within, or related to, the inspectorate. As always in such circumstances, the question arises of quis custodiet custodes—who inspects the inspectors? The obvious answer is the chief inspector. So far as concerns Wales, there is to be provision to remove an inspector from the register and that is to be preserved for the time being in Wales.
	However, so far as I understand it, the existing system does not provide the appropriate answer for a school which believes that it has been very wrongly represented in an inspector's report. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the chief inspector cannot be judge and jury in these matters and there must be an independent system of appeal of some kind. I do not suggest for a moment that in our amendments any of us have achieved such an independent system, but I am sure that the Minister has grasped the fact that such an independent system is required.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I rise briefly to support all the amendments. There is a really important point of principle here and, wider than that, of natural justice. Clearly the old procedure had flaws and I am sure that that is being investigated by the Government. Indeed, I am hopeful that we shall hear from the Minister a satisfactory answer to all the points raised. The three issues are: first, it is imperative that there should be a short period before the report is published; secondly, the effect on parents and others of the standards provided by the schools should be taken into account; and, thirdly, it is important that an inspector should be independent of Ofsted. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer all those points and that he will be able to satisfy all those who tabled the amendments.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: I also support all the amendments—particularly Amendment No. 49, which certainly comes closest to addressing the points about which I feel most concern in relation to the current procedure. Because the period of time over which the inspection and report are carried out will be fairly short, it will be all the more difficult for the report to be accurate factually.
	We are addressing two separate issues: one is that of a school's complaint against the judgments made; and the second is that addressed by Amendment No. 49 where a simple factual error has occurred. The school must be given an opportunity to put that right—not only for its own sake but also for the sake of the reputation of the inspectorate. It is very easy for a school not to produce the evidence of an activity that it undertakes. I can think of examples where the inspectorate's report has said that it is unfortunate that very little effort is made on out-of-school activities. It may simply be that the school was not asked the question sharply enough or in a form that it understood and therefore it did not produce the evidence. Once the school sees that that is what the report says, it can produce a mass of evidence that it is doing all kinds of things.
	This is a simple issue, but it concerns the reputation of the inspection process and what it can achieve, the reputation of the inspectorate and, of course, the reputation of the school and the accuracy of the report. It is vital that there is an opportunity for such dialogue between the inspectorate—particularly the writer of the report—and the school so that the report is correct. The issue of an appeal against the judgments is far more substantial and difficult.

Lord Filkin: The amendments concern a very important set of issues and this has been a clear and focused debate. We very much accept that the quality and credibility of the complaints process and the ability to resolve disputes, which is ideally what the complaints process should be about, is integral to the development of the new system.
	Perhaps I may give a little of the background before I go into the specifics of the amendments. We are not starting from a position that the process is a disaster. Clearly, in the vast majority of cases under the current system there is a high level of satisfaction with the inspection processes. When Ofsted carried out a post-inspection survey in 2002–03, of the 2,811 head teachers who responded to it, 90 per cent agreed that the inspection judgments relating to their schools were fair and accurate. I consider that to be a remarkably high satisfaction rate. Of course, that does not mean that there is total justice for everyone; it simply means that, from what head teachers are saying, there is at least a good sense that, by and large, what is being done is pretty impressive.
	We hope that our proposals for inspection will bring greater consistency and reliability of judgment. Perhaps I may talk about the process for making the judgments before I deal with the process for handling complaints.
	First, self-evaluation, which underpins the format, puts the school at the centre of the process and engages it in a meaningful and, it is hoped, professional dialogue with the inspectors about the school's performance. That participation should contribute to greater reliability. In other words, Ofsted is not going in and making 1,000 judgments; the school is making its appraisal and the inspector is then having dialogue and listening to testimony.
	Secondly, increasingly both schools and inspectors will have access to more sophisticated data. Through the Bill, we are also seeking to make the chief inspector directly accountable and responsible for inspections and reports. That will provide a powerful incentive to ensure that he secures the highest possible standards in delivery.
	The Bill also seeks to enable the chief inspector to make greater use of his professional HMI workforce in conducting inspections and assuring their quality. These changes will enable Ofsted to make important improvements to the quality assurance process itself. In addition, every draft report will be reviewed and signed off by an HMI managing inspector. Records will be maintained on the performance of each inspector—HMI included—and those will be used to inform the performance management process.
	Furthermore, where the inspection team forms the view that a school is causing concern, the school will be given feedback, including that provisional judgment. This will trigger a process of moderation, involving senior members of HMI, to test and confirm that the evidence supports the judgment. All that will build even further on what we think is a good base of reliability and consistency of inspections and inspection judgments. That is the basic system.
	I move on to the issue of complaints handling. Ofsted is now developing a new procedure for resolving concerns at the earliest possible opportunity. In many cases, this process will take place during or shortly after the inspection. Schools that have concerns about the way in which the inspection is heading, including the emerging findings, will in future have access to a helpline where they can discuss those concerns with a professional who is independent of the inspection team. Where necessary, it will be possible for an HMI managing inspector to visit the school during or shortly after the event as part of the process of seeking early resolution of the concerns of the school.
	I shall talk later about the independent process but I emphasise that, in terms of achieving effective justice, the quality of the informal process is crucial. If we simply rely on formal processes, we are less likely to achieve justice than if we have a culture and a system in which an attempt is made to achieve early resolution within the system.
	These improvements are possible because of the changes being introduced by the Bill, which will make the chief inspector directly responsible for all inspections and reports. Currently, registered inspectors are responsible for the reports that they produce. This makes it extremely difficult for the chief inspector to secure early resolution of concerns. In a situation where the chief inspector thought that an adjustment was necessary, he has very little power or locus should the registered inspector say, "No".
	Therefore, Ofsted will shortly be consulting teacher and governor associations on the informal process that I have outlined. In addition, there will be formal processes and the formal complaints process, which will be necessary only where the early resolution action does not satisfy the school. The formal complaint procedure will be rigorous, involving a number of different management tiers within Ofsted and will culminate where necessary with a final review—separate from Ofsted—by an independent adjudicator.
	The adjudicator will look at complaints about aspects of the inspection or conduct of an inspector and at how Ofsted has managed complaints. She—it is a she—will look at complaints about inspections, the content of Ofsted and its staff and she may involve the conduct of inspections, the quality of reports, mistakes, delays or the response provided to complaints. If Ofsted do not accept her recommendations, it must publish the reasons. In direct answer to the question: essentially it is the same system as at present; but, on the independence issue, the independent complaints adjudicator is appointed by the Secretary of State and, therefore, is separate from Ofsted. Her independence is protected by that process.
	The issue of whether the publication of reports should be delayed until complaints are resolved is sensitive and tricky. Where a school has a complaint, it is right that it has proper access to every stage of the complaints procedure, including external adjudication. A number of amendments have called for the chief inspector to delay publication of a report while a complaint is being considered. On occasion, delaying publication will be the right thing to do. That happened on one occasion during the trials.
	While on the face of it delaying reports where a complaint is ongoing seems just, making that a feature of the inspection arrangements could be bound to encourage complaints to become more protracted. It could also provide an incentive to make a complaint, particularly if the school did not like the findings—regardless of the evidence—leading to an unnecessarily long and drawn out process. That would not be in the interests of parents or children because they would face substantial delays in getting reports which identified issues that needed to be addressed.
	Therefore, we need to strike a balance between the importance of schools being able to make complaints and challenging inspection findings when they think that they are wrong in fact or wrong in judgment and the right of parents and pupils to proper, timely information. The chief inspector will publish reports only when he is satisfied that they meet his quality requirements. The Bill provides him with flexibility to do that. Therefore, he will delay when he deems that is necessary, but delay must not become the norm.
	I appreciate the feelings behind this group of amendments. We want our schools to have confidence that the inspection team is skilled, but there is an opportunity for the school to make representations about fact, process and judgment before matters are finalised.
	Ofsted already is committed to a complaints procedure that I have covered in detail. In short, the chief inspector, under the new system, will ensure that no report is published until the school has had the opportunity to comment and provide additional evidence where appropriate. The introduction of new informal processes focused on early resolution and a rigorous formal process developed through consultation with key stakeholders has to be the right way forward. I stress that the informal process followed by the formal process of Ofsted is in addition to the independent process to the independent complaints adjudicator.
	On Wales, I shall speak first to Amendment No. 86, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp. It would add a power by regulation to appoint an independent adjudicator, who would be required to consider complaints lodged against the conduct of a school inspection. That could include complaints that an inspection had been conducted in a manner inconsistent with legal requirements.
	In such circumstances, the chief inspector would be required to act in accordance with the findings of the adjudicator. It is quite right that there should be clear and readily available avenues for redress for those who wish to lodge complaints about both the conduct of a school inspection and the findings in an inspection report. That is why Estyn has detailed and transparent procedures for the handling of such complaints.
	The procedures are published and made widely available. They provide for complaints to be lodged initially with the lead inspector. If not satisfied with the response, the complainant may require the issues identified to be considered by senior HMI and ultimately by the chief inspector. Those dissatisfied with the conduct of an inspection can approach the Welsh Administration ombudsman.
	Initial consideration has been given to the appointment of an independent adjudicator in Wales akin to the post put in place by Ofsted in partnership with the Adult Learning Inspectorate. However, given the relatively small number of complaints received each year alongside the ready access to the Welsh Administration ombudsman, we do not believe that such an appointment would improve current procedures or provide value for money. So we do not propose any action in Wales at present, although we shall keep the matter under review.
	Amendment No. 84 would require any complaint made by a school to be resolved before the inspection report was published. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, had a twinkle in his eye when he recognised what that implied. I would love to be in negotiation with a party whereby nothing could move forward until I was satisfied. Of course, that is a power of veto. I recognise that that is not what was intended, but it illustrates the difficulty of legislating in that form.
	It is quite right that an inspection report should not be published without the prior knowledge of a school. Current procedures already provide for that. I have sought to illustrate how we shall go into that further in terms of ensuring very active participation with the school about the report and its draft findings. There must be opportunities throughout the inspection to discuss the inspection findings.
	There must also be opportunities for formal challenge to both the professional judgments and opinions expressed. Again, Estyn has such procedures which are published and made widely available. Ultimately, the professional opinion of the inspectorate has to be recognised and accepted. In a sense, the power of the ombudsman in that respect and of the independent adjudicator is foursquare with the power of ombudsmen elsewhere: they can make findings, but they cannot overturn the decision, otherwise the independence of the inspectorate is compromised. However, when a complaint has been made, it is an unwise body that does not listen seriously.
	With regard to the processes and procedures followed during an inspection, it is right that schools should have access to further and independent avenues for redress. Those dissatisfied with the conduct of an inspection or with how Estyn has managed the complaint can approach the Welsh Administration ombudsman, as I have said.
	I have covered the point about delay and not publishing until there is agreement.
	Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 brought forward by the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, would establish procedures by which maintained schools and non-maintained schools would not be required to make an inspection report available or take reasonable steps to ensure parents receive a copy until any appeals by the school have been finalised. That links with Amendment No. 84 to Clause 27, which would require a complaint to be resolved.
	I can only emphasise that it cannot be right that an inspection report should not be distributed to parents and others simply because the school disagrees with the report. As I have already indicated, there must, of course, be opportunities for schools throughout the process to be able to challenge findings of fact and judgment. There is a flaw in saying that the report cannot be published until the school is happy, as I have already pointed out.
	I have spoken at length. This is an important debate. I believe that I have fully answered the points raised—but this is not the first time that I have said that. I was invited by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, to draft my own amendment. I thought one of the purposes of being in government was that one did not have to draft one's own amendments. Nevertheless, I understand what she says. I shall read what has been said to see whether anything further is needed. At this point I am unpersuaded that we have not put on the record an adequate set of responses, but, as ever, we shall reflect on the situation. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: We thank the noble Lord for his very detailed response. We want to take time and care to digest what he has said. Appeals must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, put her finger on the point when she said that this is about principle and natural justice.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I, too, thank the Minister for his very full and helpful response and other noble Lords for participating in the debate. This is an important debate on a serious issue. I believe we shall return to it because, although the Minister has given us reassurances, it seems to me that it is important to have on the face of the Bill at least the form of wording in Amendment No. 49, which states that, "Regulations shall provide".
	The Minister has told us that a lot of detailed work is going on and that regulations and guidance will be produced. But it is important that on the face of the Bill there is a reassurance to those who at the moment feel a little dissatisfied with the way procedures are that there will be a fair appeals procedure. For that reason I think that we shall return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before 2.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Eurofighter Programme

Lord Craig of Radley: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on the Typhoon (Eurofighter) programme and the aircraft's introduction into service with the Royal Air Force.
	My Lords, since I tabled the Question the contract for a second tranche of 89 Eurofighter Typhoons has been signed. This is a good moment to learn more about this aircraft, which will be a key addition to our defence capabilities.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an indication of the delivery rate for these new aircraft, the proposed programme for the procurement of a further tranche of aircraft for the RAF and the prospects for orders from countries outside our immediate collaborative partners.
	Thanks to the good offices of the Minister and the Chief of the Air Staff, I recently went to RAF Coningsby to meet people actively involved with Typhoon. Those who had flown the aircraft were full of praise for its performance; some even used the word "awesome"—not the sort of phrase normally associated with top-gun fighter pilots. Two aircraft, one with no more than a dozen flight hours on the clock, had been deployed to Singapore only a short time before my visit—a most impressive achievement, both operationally and logistically.
	Listening to all of this and briefs about immediate plans for the future work at RAF Coningsby was stimulating. For me it could only be bettered in one way: that I should try out Typhoon for myself. So, with a medical check for fitness and a ministerial blessing, this 75 year-old did just that. Even nearly 20 years on since I last flew a fighter aircraft, I found it a delight to fly and easy to handle. I soon started to understand and follow the latest instrumentation and enjoy the aircraft's fantastically impressive performance. It was a marvellous finale to my erstwhile involvement with this programme, but a stark reminder of the time taken from a go ahead to reaching operational capability.
	Eighteen years ago, in 1987, when I was Chief of the Air Staff, I signed, along with my opposite numbers from Germany, Italy and Spain, the revised European air staffs' operational requirement for a new fighter which our four air forces were most anxious to have.
	Time is too short to remind your Lordships of the many years, even before that date, that the RAF and the other air forces had striven to find common ground for the design and production of a single type of aircraft to meet our various most pressing operational needs. For the RAF it was then to fill a key void in our range of capabilities—an air superiority fighter, but, using an airframe capable of undertaking other, offensive, operations. Such flexibility is highly desirable. It allows for re-roling of the airframe throughout its service life.
	Air superiority means to have the performance edge to achieve and maintain dominance over the enemy in the airspaces above and adjacent to our own side's forces, and is vital for our ground and maritime forces as we become ever more committed to expeditionary-type operations.
	It was the chiefs of air staff expectation when we signed the operational requirement that prototypes would be flying in the early 1990s, and we would have aircraft in front-line service by the mid-1990s. Now, a decade later, this aspiration is only just beginning to become a reality.
	Such delay is not a new experience for the RAF. Collaborative programmes suffer the risk of far greater delay and a failure to achieve development milestones than is likely with a national one. In Typhoon's case this has been a considerable, but by no means the only, part of the reason for such protracted progress. The German Government of the early 1990s became disillusioned with the programme; so much so, that they withdrew.
	Although they eventually returned, this was a major delay factor, and the repercussions within the partner countries, including our own while we re-evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a programme without Germany, simply compounded the delay. All high-cost collaborative programmes of this type require revalidation by incoming governments, and the wider the collaboration, the greater the possibilities of such reviews causing delay.
	Moreover, complex and innovative technology, such as that used by Typhoon, brings its own problems. Software writing and validation, especially when both flight and engine controls are all computer driven, has to be right. The risks involved if there are software errors can be catastrophic, not just for the aircraft in the air, but for the whole future of the programme.
	It is for these reasons, based on experience with a number of programmes over the past 40 years, that I remain concerned about the validity of milestones predicted for new collaborative equipments. It is hazarding our airpower capability to withdraw equipment such as Jaguar and Sea Harrier when replacements are still in early development, even hardly off the drawing board. Delays are sometimes beyond national control; no amount of smart procurement can offset them.
	In Typhoon's case the first development airframes started flying in 1994. Ten years later only 10 two-seater aircraft from the first batch of tranche one were in RAF hands.
	Even if all goes exactly to plan with operational evaluation and the training of squadron pilots, a significant front-line capability with this aircraft is still some time into the future. No doubt the Minister will be able to give the House an outline of the RAF's plans for this phase in the introduction of the aircraft to service.
	Delays like those I have outlined lead inevitably to cost increases, either directly, attributable to the programme itself, or—and this is often overlooked by commentators—in run-on costs of aircraft and equipment due to have been withdrawn, and the extra training and support costs for them. These additional costs press heavily in short-term budgets.
	Another often repeated criticism is that the aircraft was designed for the Cold War so that it is an expensive white elephant—no use against asymmetric threats like Osama bin Laden or other terrorists groups. Such criticism is very wide of the mark. Do not forget that the Americans and ourselves actually hold fighters at readiness to deal with hijacked aircraft, though I sincerely hope as a successful deterrent to such an attack.
	And who will assert with confidence in the 30 or more years of the life of Typhoon that there will be no other even more serious threat to which this country will respond? Since the end of the Cold War—and going back even before that—in the past quarter of a century we have been using both high-quality defence and offensive air power operationally on many occasions, and particularly in the past decade.
	Typhoon will give the RAF the edge over other opposition—one hopes deterring them from attacking our ground and maritime forces, but, if not, finding that Typhoon is master. It would be morally indefensible to equip our pilots to take on the enemy in the air without a better than evens chance of being the victor.
	I am sure that noble Lords will agree that Typhoon and other advanced equipments achieve the expected performance only if their pilots and ground crews are highly motivated and well trained. That has been the hallmark of the Royal Air Force since its inception. Today's personnel can rightly be proud of their service, with an aircraft such as Typhoon.
	Typhoon, when it has been fitted out with its full potential and its pilots have gained experience with its capabilities, will provide that winning edge in any theatre of war for the next 20 or 30 years. It is truly an awesome aircraft.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for arranging this opportunity to review the progress of the introduction of Eurofighter Typhoon. I declare a past interest: I served on the air staff in the late 1980s and early 1990s, under the noble and gallant Lord's leadership, and we were often interested in the progress of this project.
	As the noble and gallant Lord said, we can track progress back over a very long period. One can look at the origins in the air staff target laid down in 1972 for an air superiority fighter. The changing nomenclature gives us a feel for the complexity of bringing the deal to fruition. We had ECA (European Combat Aircraft), ECF (European Combat Fighter), ACA (Agile Combat Aircraft), EAP (European Aircraft Programme), FEFA (Future European Fighter Aircraft), EFA (European Fighter Aircraft), Eurofighter, EF2000 and now Typhoon. We had a three-nation collaborative programme with France and Germany at the start, but in the end our requirements differed too much. The French requirement to be able to operate from an aircraft carrier perhaps looks more foresighted now than it did then. The 1980s saw the entry of Italy and Spain into the partnership as we lost France.
	In looking back at this long and challenging programme we must remember the important part that technology demonstrators played in how it was put together. The EAP demonstrator prototype flew in 1985, just over two years after the production contract was let. That demonstrator had nearly six years of flying, which allowed much of the development work to be tested before going final on the Eurofighter itself. It was perhaps overconfident, although it did not seem so at the time, to rename the aircraft Eurofighter 2000 in late 1992. The first development aircraft flew in 1994, the tranche one contract was signed in late 1998 and the first instrument production aircraft flights took place in April 2002. The formal delivery of aircraft to the four nations took place in June last year, and, as we have heard from the Minister, we have now signed up for the second tranche.
	Some commentators look at this long history as though the Eurofighter is a legacy system of the Cold War, but that assessment is absolutely wrong. We can be proud that we have produced an appropriate capability for the current security challenges. In the Cold War we faced a geographically well defined threat, which required long-range air interception. The F3 Tornado was an appropriate capability for that. Now the agile fighter, with an ability to use a range of smart weapons systems, is an important part of any nation's armoury. The long history of development and testing of the technology has allowed that capability to adapt to the changing requirement. So it is not a legacy system; it is an up-to-date system.
	We might have gone down the same route as the Americans did of producing a very high cost stealth fighter optimised against a Soviet threat. We see that in the United States F22 Raptor. There have been unclassified reports of simulated combat using the various options available today, ranging from the F22 to cheaper fighters. If you put an F22 against a Sukhoi Su-35 in unclassified informal tests in network simulators, you manage to shoot down 10 Su-35s for every F22 that you lose. If you do it with Eurofighter you manage to shoot down 4.5 aircraft for every Typhoon that you lose. The next best air superiority capability using the same missile systems is the Rafale, which shares a one-for-one exchange rate. F15s, F18s and F16s are all less than unity. We are buying one of the best capabilities. Those are unclassified results, but they give an idea of the order of the advance in our performance and what we are getting.
	I wish to deal briefly with the question of price, because it is often said that this is an expensive capability. All modern combat aircraft are expensive, but we are getting an extraordinary capability at what seems a good price. It is difficult to predict the ultimate cost of any particular aircraft system without knowing what the Minister and his Government will do about tranche three. One must spread the costs of development over the total fleet. Nevertheless, one can cost it from the price charged to the Austrians, whose aircraft is reported to cost 62 million euros a copy. I imagine that ours will be slightly more expensive. According to the Minister's figures for tranche two, given in his statement and his letter, the cost is about £50 million a copy or thereabouts.
	By comparison, the latest figures for the F22 are 42 billion dollars for the 276 that they originally planned to buy—152 million dollars each. But they are going to reduce those numbers, so the price will rise, making each aircraft even more expensive. Despite the fall in the dollar, Eurofighter's capability will be extraordinarily good value for money. That has serious implications for its ability as an export product, when other nations look at where they want to go with that sort of aircraft.
	Although the Eurofighter is good value in military aircraft terms, there is still the question of costs. As we all know, it is a time of enormous strain on the defence budget. I assume that the Minister will search for ways to keep costs down. Convincing more of our allies to buy Eurofighter would be a good starting point. In that respect we are missing a great opportunity for encouraging sales, while at the same time reducing our own operating costs and increasing overall European capabilities.
	The four nations that have now committed will get nearly 400 aircraft. If tranche three goes ahead—we will perhaps talk about that on Monday—the figure will rise to more than 600. That is a serious capability for Europe, which the United States will really take notice of. If we looked at ways to operate the fleet on a more shared basis, there could be significant cost savings in maintenance logistics and training. It would also have the advantage of smaller European air forces being able to operate a few aircraft put into the bigger pool without having to set up the infrastructure normally associated with high-performance aircraft.
	Some of that opportunity has already been lost as the four nations have set up their own national arrangements. I do not doubt that in years to come we shall be under great resource pressure; we will look for ways to co-operate and rationalise beyond our own shores. I would like us to consider at some stage operating the Eurofighter force more as a pooled fleet; after all, we are prepared to do it with the Trident missile system with the US. I understand the political difficulties at this stage, but we must not freeze out the option. In that regard we can learn from our experience with the Tornado. In the end, we had to give up the tri-national unit on the Tornado at RAF Cottesmore because each nation had independently modified its Tornado fleet so much that there was not enough commonality in the systems to make common training useful any more. I ask the Minister to look hard at the advantages of keeping all nations' Eurofighters modified to a common standard so that the advantages of shared costs are still open to be exploited if we need to.
	When the Minister reports on the progress of the programme, I trust that he will include an update on the state of simulator support. After the problems with the Apache programme over the provision of simulation, we need to ensure that it is coming on-stream for the Eurofighter in the right timescale.
	Simulation has other important benefits. The use of network simulators will make training time much more productive. While aircrew will continue to need training time in the air, we have argued for many years that technology will change the balance of that time in the cockpit and the time in the simulator. That will have not only cost benefits but environmental benefits as well. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how the balance will be changed by the introduction of Eurofighter with its simulators into service.
	The reduction in fast-jet numbers under the latest RAF drawdown will presumably have eased the shortage of pilots. However, we are looking now at the introduction of Eurofighter, the continuation of Tornado F3 for a slight overlap, the continuation of Tornado GR4, and then the Harrier/JSF transition to come. All of that will require a sustainable long-term plan for sufficient numbers of fast-jet aircrew. I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the current plans will be able to sustain the necessary numbers.
	In addition, if we are moving towards a smaller fleet of aircraft overall, they will need to be used as efficiently as possible. So perhaps there is a case for raising the aircrew-to-aircraft ratio. Are we looking at that, and what plans does the Minister have?
	We on these Benches very much welcome the precision attack capability development. This is not just an air superiority fighter but will be capable of air-to-ground missions. That raises another question. How do we organise those different capabilities? It appears that we are still looking at having different air defence and ground attack squadrons and specialisations. Is that sensible any more? Are we looking at crews being multi-roled rather than specialised as they have been in the past? We need to be thinking of more imaginative approaches in the light of the experiences of other nations and the new changing requirements we have in terms of the operations we do.
	Finally, I congratulate the Minister. He has had responsibility for defence procurement, seeing the first tranche into service and signing the contract for the second tranche. This is an important defence capability. The technology has been developed within Europe and the export potential is significant.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for initiating this debate, on an issue which, judging by the press it is constantly receiving, can indeed be considered topical. It has been a most interesting and exceedingly well informed discussion covering a range of points which are most pertinent to the subject. I will not try to reiterate too many of those already made today, especially considering the transcendent expertise of the noble Lords who have just spoken.
	The operational arrival of the Eurofighter Typhoon—a really excellent aircraft, I have heard from all sources—is critical to bringing the RAF's capabilities into line with those required in an air force in the 21st century. Once fully operational, it will have replaced the F3 Tornado in the air defence role and, when the ground-attack variant of the Typhoon is developed, also the Jaguar and its ground attack and reconnaissance role. It will therefore become the RAF's premier swing-role strike fighter.
	Could the Minister please tell us more about the planned retirement of the F3 Tornados? When deliveries of the first tranche of Typhoon are complete, will the F3s be offered for sale to allies not involved in the Typhoon programme or will they be scrapped? Could he also tell the House when he expects to conclude a contract with the manufacturers on the ground-attack variant? Is this likely to cost more over and above the Typhoon budget as it is at present?
	We on these Benches recognise that the Typhoon will play an increasingly important role in our air defence over the next 30 years. To those who suggest—as it has been suggested really rather a lot in the media—that the aircraft is obsolete and irrelevant, I say that without command of the air, ground and sea based forces are placed at serious risk. Of course we recognise that this four-nation project has been over budget and behind schedule, and that is putting it pretty mildly, but that is partly attributable to the collaborative nature of the project and partly to the advances in technology incorporated in it. In terms of upgrades, can the Minister tell me whether there are likely to be any significant advances in software between the first and second tranche?
	There is no doubt that these planes are prime examples of a new military technology and that the contracts to build them are providing significant employment both here and abroad and will continue to do so for a number of years. In fact, as I understand it, we are now at a point where cancellation of tranche three would, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, be almost as expensive as going ahead. Could the Minister please confirm whether that is the case?
	Much has been said about the Typhoon itself; however, these aircraft will not be of much use without sufficient trained pilots to fly them and indeed technicians to maintain them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I am a little worried whether there are enough trained pilots and technicians for the first tranche and indeed whether there will be enough coming along for the second and possibly the third tranche later on.
	My eye was caught by a piece in the Times last week, with which I am sure that most of your Lordships will be familiar, concerning an alleged dispute at a senior level within the MoD that it is no longer feasible or affordable for the Government to go ahead with both the Typhoon and the planned aircraft carriers. What is the Minister's response to the article? Is his department indeed considering axing or curtailing one or other of these extremely expensive projects?
	I should also like to ask the Minister what effect the cost overruns such as that seen with the Typhoon will have on other parts of the defence budget. I understand that the 20 largest major procurement projects which were originally intended to cost £44 billion have now risen to £50 billion, an increase of 14 per cent. From where will the money come to pay for those costs?
	It seems that the Government are unable to manage their major procurements efficiently enough, and that means that our frontline forces have had to suffer under-funding. Our defence budget is already seriously overstretched, and as we are quite rightly committed to numerous major defence projects vital to delivering our future security at the same time as more of our Armed Forces are deployed than at any time in recent years, we simply cannot afford these endless cost overruns and interminable delays. Can the Minister inform the House what contingency arrangements the Government have made to cover any increase in costs that the next two tranches of Typhoon may incur?
	The strategic value of this impressive swing-role aircraft will undoubtedly and unquestionably benefit our Armed Forces immeasurably, but the delay and overspend on a project that is far from completed, and the commitment of funds during a period of extremely sensitive defence cuts elsewhere in the Armed Forces, casts a distinct shadow over the political handling of this project. Nevertheless, I look forward very much, as always, to listening to the response of the Minister.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on securing this debate. I should like to thank him and the other noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions and particularly for their support, well expressed in every case, for this project. This project is an extremely important programme for the future.
	The noble Lord, Lord Luke, and I stand out as the only two speakers who have not had the experience of the RAF at the very senior level that both the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, have enjoyed. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will forgive me if I say that the two of them spoke with obviously much more experience and expertise than perhaps he and certainly I can manage on this occasion. I am very grateful for what they have said. It is good that both were young enough to have been around at the start of this project.
	A view that I am sure will be common to all Members of the House is that no matter how technologically advanced our equipment is or may become, we rely first and foremost on the quality of those who fly these aircraft and those who prepare them for flight. I am sure that the House will agree that in the RAF, as in all our Armed Forces, frankly we have the very best.
	However, the dedication and professionalism of our service personnel must be supported by provision of the equipment that they need to do their job effectively. The order placed last month for the second tranche of Typhoon is solid evidence of our commitment to provide our people with the best equipment.
	Typhoon will provide the RAF and our partners' airforces with an outstanding combat aircraft that, with its multi-role capability—and I break off now to say that there will not be some kind of multi-role variant, this is a multi-role aircraft now—its flexibility and its adaptability will provide the cornerstone of their fighting capability well into the 21st century. Recent operations, most recently in Iraq, have demonstrated the vital role of air power on the modern battlefield. In Typhoon we have an aircraft capable of extending this capability and meeting the threats of the future, which will enable our RAF to deliver its effects within a wider, network-enabled capability, both with our own armed services and with our allies.
	It is right to say that Typhoon started out as an air superiority fighter with a secondary ground-attack capability, and commentators—both distinguished and yet still uninformed—still criticise it as a Cold War relic. I was particularly glad to hear what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said in dismissing that criticism. However, as we all know, today's operational environment demands much greater emphasis on all-weather precision and stand-off attack, while retaining the air superiority role. The Typhoon of today has been developed to meet this requirement and we will continue to adapt it throughout its life to maintain both its effectiveness and its superiority.
	The measures being taken to ensure an early air-to-surface capability for the tranche one aircraft provide a good example of how we are adapting Typhoon to the needs of today's and tomorrow's RAF. That will be achieved through the provision of a laser designation pod and precision-guided bombs—in this case, Enhanced Paveway II. The flexibility to equip the aircraft to meet the weapon requirements of individual partner nations is an important feature of the aircraft, which we will be exploiting. But the majority of the aircraft is common to all partner nations, including the airframe structure, engines, avionics, flight and utility controls. We are intending, as are all nations involved, to operate our own aircraft. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garden, will be pleased to be reminded that the partner nations have developed the integrated weapon support system in order to maximise the commonality of support requirements. I take on board the points he made about that.
	In due course, the tranche one aircraft will be brought up to tranche two standards. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Luke, tranche two has increased and better software. That will create a truly multi-role fleet, equipped to complement other air and land forces in a wide variety of theatres worldwide.
	Perhaps I may refer briefly to tranche three. Under the four nation Memorandum of Understanding that underpins the Typhoon joint programme, the UK has undertaken to procure 232 aircraft out of a total production of 620; 55 were ordered in tranche one, with an additional 89 aircraft being purchased in the second tranche. Decisions on tranche three are not required before 2007.
	I have so far spoken about capability. I turn to the significant progress we have made with Typhoon's introduction to service with the RAF, which has already taken delivery of 10 tranche one aircraft. We expect to continue delivering aircraft at a rate of approximately 13 per year. Industry does, however, have the capacity to increase production to cope with export orders.
	Typhoon has now flown over 650 sorties, equating to over 900 flying hours, and is supported by BAE Systems under the very successful Case White industrial partnering arrangements. Under Case White, Typhoon is matching, and indeed exceeding, expectations, not only in its flying performance but also in terms of its reliability and availability. Since the RAF flying started, only about 3 per cent of planned flights have had to be aborted due to aircraft issues. Such a record of reliability is particularly impressive in an aircraft of this sophistication so recently introduced into service. The best example of this excellent reliability was demonstrated last year by the deployment of two brand-new aircraft to Singapore to take part in the Republic of Singapore Air Force evaluations. That is a testament to the quality of the product and to the effective working relations developed between the Royal Air Force and BAE Systems.
	Consequently, it is no surprise that interest in the aircraft has been shown by a number of other nations, and we are actively supporting industry in seeking export orders. We have a special four nation committee dealing with exports alone. Others clearly recognise the aircraft's merits. Mention has been made of Austria, which has ordered 18. That is excellent news both for the Government, because it spreads the costs, and for our economy by providing high-quality work for a skilled workforce.
	We are now moving towards the next major milestone in the programme—the move of the RAF Typhoon squadrons to RAF Coningsby and the build-up of the Typhoon fleet. That embraces a wide range of military planning, including the standing down of the existing systems—such as Jaguar and Tornado F3—that it will replace, the very significant personnel implications of introducing a new aircraft into service, and the preparation of infrastructure at the RAF stations from which Typhoon will operate. F3s will be put into our normal disposal system, which may include onward sale to third parties or—and I hope not—sale for scrap, as appropriate.
	Preparations are almost complete following a large programme of renovation and new-build projects that will provide a modern state-of-the-art base for this state-of-the-art aircraft. Much of the RAF's current focus is on bringing Typhoon into service at Coningsby.
	We will see the Typhoon Operational Conversion Unit and the Operational Evaluation Unit move to Coningsby later this year and the build-up of the unit's operational Typhoon force during 2006 and the year following. I can assure the House that we will have sufficient pilots to operate our fast jet fleet.
	The Typhoon squadrons—and I hope that this will please the noble Lord, Lord Garden—will be multi-role and will replace the current single-role Tornado F3 and Jaguar squadrons. The transfer of squadrons to Coningsby kicks off Typhoon's role as a central part of Britain's fighting capability—a role that will last a very long time into this century.
	A vital part of establishing our multi-role squadrons is having properly trained pilots to fly and operate the aircraft. We will provide a balanced mix of simulators and live training and have invested a significant effort to ensure that the balance is right. The balance between simulator and in-training is kept under constant review and we are confident that we have the right balance. Before proceeding with ASTA—the training programme connected with this project—the investment decision process included a full training needs analysis and investment appraisal that ensured a cost-effective balance between simulator and on-aircraft training.
	Defence investments do not get much larger than Typhoon. Some might say that we should have signed up to tranche two earlier, but, on such an important investment, it was essential that we got the contract right. I am delighted that we have been able to work with our partner nations and industry to conclude tranche two negotiations. I thank all those involved for their sterling efforts in achieving that.
	The tranche two order is worth some £4.3 billion. That is a huge investment in front-line capability that will provide the RAF with 89 aircraft in addition to the 55 already on order under tranche one. Typhoon is not in competition with any other large project. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked me about that with regard to an article in the Times last week. There is no competition between the projects, and both are essential parts of our future programme.
	The order forms part of a larger contract shared with our three partner nations—Germany, Italy and Spain—for 236 aircraft. It represents one of the largest European defence investments ever. The order is obviously good news for British industry as well as for the Royal Air Force. It has been estimated by BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce that, during peak production, the tranche two order will help sustain 16,000 jobs with defence manufacturers and their suppliers. As importantly, it keeps alive key skills and capabilities—including system integration, specialist software, crew and escape systems and sensors—that are vital to the future prosperity of the UK's aerospace industry.
	As has been rightly pointed out, however, Typhoon has not always had the smoothest of rides. That is not all that surprising for a programme of such size, complexity and importance. There have been challenges. As was pointed out, we carefully considered our planned future capabilities after the Cold War. Eurofighter was not exempt. We concluded, along with our partners—we know about the delay in the early 1990s through one of our partners—that Typhoon still had an important role to play in the less predictable post-Cold War strategic environment. That point was made clearly in this short debate.
	We should also remember that Typhoon was initiated long before the Government's Smart acquisition initiatives were introduced. I believe that, if we were starting today, we would have negotiated some of the earlier challenges more deftly under Smart acquisition. Nevertheless, we are still finding ways, we hope, of improving the way in which we conduct business, by taking steps with fellow partner nations, NETMA and industry to improve the delivery and management of the project as we move forward to tranche two. We have adopted Smart acquisition policies where appropriate. For instance—this is significant—the capability of Typhoon will progressively increase as part of the Future Capabilities programme that will commence in 2005. Future weapon systems will be integrated on to the platform as and when they become available.
	Typhoon will provide our Air Force with an exceptional weapons system that will be the cornerstone of the RAF's future fighting capability. The words of the RAF pilots who have flown it speak for themselves. Indeed, the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who has flown it, speak for themselves. I shall quote some current pilots. One said:
	"Typhoon is a fantastic aeroplane".
	Another said:
	"It is absolutely tremendous to fly".
	The word "awesome" was, I think, the last word in the noble and gallant Lord's speech this afternoon.
	Lest it be thought that those of us speaking today are biased in some way, either because of having served in the Royal Air Force or for any other reason, I must refer to the senior United States Air Force general who, fresh from an exhilarating first flight in Typhoon and, naturally, quite excited, was heard to say, "This is the best fast jet in the world". We agree. What more can be said, beyond thanking the noble and gallant Lord once again for the opportunity to commend Typhoon to the House?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 2.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 2.25 to 2.40 p.m.]

Education Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 5.
	[Amendments Nos. 26 to 32 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may use this opportunity to raise a perhaps rather esoteric point. From conversations outside this House, my understanding is that the new inspection regime will not involve contact between the inspector and the heads of department in a school, which used to be the case. I want to establish that that is true. The consequence I am aware of is that it seems possible that it will lead to the collapse of the present inspection system for independent schools. When Ofsted was set up, the ISCis swung in behind the system in the end. The argument which persuaded them to do that was that the benefit which would arise would be contact between the inspection team and the heads of subjects and departments and the way in which that would be used to spread good practice and improve the way in which all schools deal with it.
	If ISCis is to swing behind the new system, as I understand is proposed, there seems to be a very substantial body of opinion that under those circumstances the inspections are not worth having at all. Without requiring an answer now, and I would appreciate a letter, I would very much like to know whether my understanding about subject inspections is right.
	I would also like to know whether the Government are aware of the position being taken by HMCI and ISCis on the subject and whether they are content with that position. If not, I would like to know what they are going to do about it.

Lord Filkin: I am very happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, an undertaking that I shall reply to him on all three points and on anything else which is germane.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 33:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"REDUCING BURDEN OF INSPECTION ON SCHOOLS
	The Chief Inspector when conducting an inspection under section 5 shall exercise his functions with regard to the desirability of avoiding excessive administrative burdens being placed on governing bodies and head teachers of maintained schools."

Lord Hanningfield: The intent of this Bill is to introduce a far lighter touch, quicker and rationalised inspection regime and one that places greater emphasis on school self-evaluation. That is a desire that we can all support.
	The need for such reform is evident. We are all aware of the pressures—they have been debated several times already—that an inspection places on a school from the headmaster downwards. It is often a nerve-racking, fraught and an exceptionally busy couple of weeks with a lot of preparation beforehand. The danger of the reforms outlined in this legislation is that the pressures will simply be concentrated not over a matter of weeks, as now, but with a reduced time-frame and notification period over a few days. Therefore, the level of stress and work is not reduced during that time but heightened. This could be a disturbing development.
	However, I must share with the Committee a suspicion that the legislation, although it does much to reduce the bureaucracy on the inspectors themselves, does little to reduce the bureaucracy and the need to perform on the schools. The most important part of the education system is the teachers and they will have more work to do in self-assessment. They will have to collate it.
	We on these Benches believe that the teachers' first priority must be to deliver quality education and not to please an official from Whitehall. Perhaps the Minister can explain to us how these reforms will reduce the levels of bureaucracy placed on our teachers by inspection. There is nothing whatsoever on the face of the Bill which addresses this key issue. We all know that one of the single biggest reasons why teachers are disillusioned with their jobs and are leaving the profession is because they often face too much red tape.
	Therefore, Amendment No. 33 will place on the chief inspector a duty to exercise his functions with regard to the desirability of avoiding excessive administrative burdens being placed on governing bodies and head teachers. I expect that we shall return to this amendment at a later date, but I would like to hear the Minister's views on it now. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: This is an important probing amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, because if we can obtain the same or better benefits with less bureaucracy, pain and even stress, then clearly we have advanced, and that is clearly one of the aims of the Bill. We are clear that an excessive burden should not be placed on the schools. That is one of the purposes of the revised inspection system and one which is sure to be more focused with far fewer inspectors, albeit at short notice. I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe that stress compressed over a few days in response to a short notice inspection has to be less in aggregate than an inspection over a period of months, but be that as it may.
	The regulatory impact assessment that was published to support the Bill, which has been made available to the House, highlights the benefits to the schools which will be brought about by the inspection process on exactly the issue the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has spoken of.
	For example, it is anticipated that savings in schools, not to Ofsted, will be equivalent to at least £40 million a year as a result of these changes. I shall be happy to send a note to the Front Benches summarising that regulatory impact assessment, if that were to be of use.
	The process will mean less preparation by schools. The self-evaluation form, which is the only form that will need to be available prior to inspection, will be used not only for inspection, but it will form part of the school's own self-review. It is important to see the self-evaluation form and process as not a burden of compliance with an inspection system, but a responsibility of management and leadership in the institution itself. That is part of doing the job properly even if an inspector was not about to arrive. It is different from the current procedure where schools require four pre-inspection forms, which are solely for the purpose of the inspection itself.
	The basis on which inspections will be covered in the future will be the school's own self-evaluation evidence. We are also not being prescriptive about how schools self-evaluate, as we have said previously.
	We have also tested this process through consulting with the Implementation Review Unit, which is a panel of 12 head teachers and senior school practitioners who have a function specifically to cut bureaucracy across schools. They have been closely involved in the new arrangements. They will continue to monitor, through visits to schools and meetings, with Ofsted and departmental officials.
	Perhaps I may quote from its review and annual report of 2003–04, which states:
	"A new, lighter touch inspection regime is something that we believe will be of great benefit to schools: we have shared this view with senior Ofsted officials. We welcome the emphasis on self-assessment".
	Therefore, I believe that we have strong grounds for the expectation that this will not only reduce costs to Ofsted but perhaps, more importantly, reduce costs to schools. That has to be a continuing ambition and we intend it to be so. I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is not minded to press his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that response. This is a difficult issue in many walks of life. As I have said before, I am the leader of a large council. The Audit Commission has asked for an assessment, but it has cut its staff and is now asking us to do a lot of the self-assessment. We have had to ask a very senior government officer who works part-time to spend all their time collating all the self-assessment processes operating within the authority. While I accept that we should take it on, it amounts to reams of paperwork.
	Moreover, as a school governor I know that a great deal of self-assessment is going on there. Although there may not be quite so much on the PE and arts side at the moment as there will have to be in the future, someone will still have to collate all the data and, I hope, present it more frequently to the governing body so that it, too, can become more closely involved in the school's self-assessment processes.
	If we are not careful, more work will be created for schools. Also, whenever money is saved by one person, it inevitably seems to cost someone else more. I fear that if Ofsted saves money, this will cost schools more.
	The level of bureaucracy in schools is such an important issue that I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 126.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 6 [Duty to notify parents of section 5 inspection]:
	[Amendments Nos. 34 to 38 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
	Clause 7 [Inspection at discretion of Chief Inspector]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 5, line 17, after "may" insert ", having first sought and secured the approval of the Secretary of State,"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: This is another relatively short amendment that is probing in nature. Clause 7, which is itself a very brief provision, states:
	"The Chief Inspector may inspect any school in England, in circumstances where he is not required by section 2(2)(b) or 5 to do so".
	The Explanatory Notes state:
	"This clause replaces section 3(1) of the SIA [School Inspections Act] 1996 and gives the Chief Inspector the power to inspect any school at any time, even when not under a duty to do so under clause 2(2)(b) or clause 5. This allows the Chief Inspector to inspect any school where he may have cause for concern in respect of his general duty under clause 2. It also enables the Chief Inspector to conduct inspections for a range of purposes, including monitoring visits by HMI to schools in special measures, visits to schools to aid him in keeping the Secretary of State informed under clause 2, or to contribute to reports on, for example, the teaching in a single curriculum subject".
	The probing issues I want to raise with the Minister are as follows: does this clause give any new powers to the chief inspector, or is it really just a straight mirror image of Section 3(1) of the School Inspections Act 1996? Will it mean monitoring visits for schools designated as "requiring significant improvement" as well as those in special measures? What will this provision mean for schools in terms of the notice period for such inspections? I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: In response to the first of the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the intent and effect of Clause 7 is not new, although I will have to check the wording. It reflects the same powers as were previously in place.
	However, the vast majority of the work of Ofsted will be undertaken through the powers given to the chief inspector under Section 5 for the routine inspection of schools, and through Section 2(2)(b) which will cover, for example, advising the Secretary of State on particular types of school such as specialist schools.
	The purpose of the clause is to give the chief inspector the power to conduct visits for other purposes. This would include monitoring visits which take place once every term for schools causing concern, action which is based on a policy agreed with the Secretary of State as part of checking on the progress of such schools. In practice, therefore, there are very few instances where the chief inspector would be visiting schools without the prior agreement of the Secretary of State in some capacity. There will be a small number of occasions where the chief inspector has serious concerns about a school. Clause 7 gives him the power to act quickly, where necessary, if he has such concerns. We believe this to be fundamental to the independence of the chief inspector's role. As to whether he would be routinely visiting schools under the "significant improvement" requirement, the answer is no. These are inspected after a year.
	In conclusion, we would not want to get in the way of the chief inspector's ability to discharge his duties effectively and to be able to inspect and report. As to what it means for the notice period, I will have to reflect on that question. I think it can be done without notice; but, if I am wrong on that, the noble Baroness will receive a rapid correcting letter. I hope that that is helpful. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment if she feels so minded.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. Yes, he has elucidated the purposes of the clause. We were particularly concerned about whether this requirement for "significant improvement" gave the inspector power to intervene rapidly on those occasions. It is reassuring to know that there will be a regular inspection process after a year. In view of those reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 5, line 18, at end insert "where he may have cause for concern arising from his duty under section 2"

Lord Hanningfield: This amendment is designed to probe the Minister on those circumstances where the chief inspector wishes to inspect a school at his discretion as distinct from the usual round of normal inspections. There are a number of short questions that I should like to ask. I hope that the Minister can provide the Committee with satisfactory assurances so that we do not have to return to this amendment at a later stage.
	Under what other criteria, apart from that outlined in Clause 5(5), does the Minister envisage the chief inspector might wish to inspect a school? Perhaps he could also provide us with some practical scenarios of when this power could be used. Furthermore, how often does the Minister envisage the chief inspector using this power? For example, could it be used more than once on the same school in a short period of time? I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: I do not have a great deal to add to what I said in regard to the previous amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. However, I shall see what I can do in that respect.
	Amendment No. 41 seeks to place restrictions on the power of the chief inspector. As I indicated previously, we believe that is undesirable in principle because it would fetter his discretion.
	The discretion given under Clause 7 is not new—the 1996 Act had an equivalent provision—and will be used for a range of purposes, including in relation to monitoring visits which are conducted for schools in special measures. It would also be used on the rare occasion where a school is causing serious concern.
	However, the power should not be limited to these purposes. The chief inspector will want to use this power to inspect single subjects and other matters which have come to his attention, where the breadth of a Clause 5 inspection is not necessary or appropriate but nevertheless the inspector feels it is desirable to go in and assess the situation.
	The inspection must also, of course, serve to identify good practice, an important aspect of how it can contribute to improvement. The consequence of this amendment would be that the inspector could not gather in evidence about good practice in that respect.
	As to more than once per school, no, we do not expect that to happen. Although, if one thought hard enough one could clearly envisage extreme circumstances, but that is not the expectation. We do not want to, and the inspector would not want us to, add unnecessary burdens. I am certain that there will be good, strong and pressing reasons for an inspection to be carried out under these powers.
	I hope that is helpful and that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, feels minded not to press his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply, which was helpful. We shall analyse it further before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Publication of inspection reports]:
	[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Page 6, line 15, after "electronic" insert "and other"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: Amendment No. 47 is similar to one of my previous amendments and it would perhaps have been better had it been grouped with it. However, I should like to return to the issue and perhaps have another go.
	This is a simple probing amendment. As the Bill currently stands, it seems to imply that the chief inspector has to publish inspection reports only by electronic means—that is, presumably, on the Ofsted website. In his answer to my previous amendment, the Minister said that the Ofsted website had had a record number of hits. It may be that that was because Members of the Committee were preparing for the Bill.
	I am pleased about that. It is a step that we can all support. However, is there not a danger that in doing so we could, in effect, withhold vital information from those people and parents of pupils at the school in question who do not have access to the Internet? Surely it would be sensible to ensure that copies are available in both electronic and hard copy to allow as many people as possible to access these reports. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is right in that respect but, in practice, that is what the Bill as crafted does. It does so in a careful way. It requires not that absolutely everything has to be both electronically published and printed at the same time but that the inspector has to use his judgment as to how it is published according to the circumstances. Therefore one could imagine a situation where a parent who, for some reason, had not been sent a copy of a report, or wanted a copy of a report but did not have access to the web, would write to the chief inspector saying "I would like a copy of this report about the school", or whatever. In a situation like that, it is hard to envisage that the inspector would write back saying "No, you cannot have it. Go to the website". You would expect, as a good public servant, that he would send a copy. He has got the power to do it either way without essentially forcing him to have a large warehouse where everything is stocked just in case someone asks for it.
	With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, will feel that the Bill addresses the position correctly. It does not expect the website to be the only means because, as the noble Baroness said, there will be some people who cannot make use of it.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that the chief inspector will be mindful that this issue has been the subject of debate. The Internet is not all singing and dancing. If we believe that that is the only means of communicating we will not ensure that everyone who has a right to read the reports has access to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I may well return to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 6, line 16, leave out subsection (3).

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The amendment seeks to probe the reasons and the meaning behind Clause 10(3). Subsection (3) states:
	"For the purposes of the law of defamation any report published by the Chief Inspector under either of those provisions"—
	that is, the provisions for publication—
	"is privileged unless the publication is shown to have been made with malice".
	This would appear to be a new protection which does not reflect the potential for real damage to a school's reputation arising from an inaccurate report. While it is obviously important to discourage court action being taken against individual inspectors, there is a need for a robust complaints procedure, as we debated this morning. Given the limitations of the inspection complaint process, this could effectively cut off the last possible course of redress that a school could pursue.
	One of the reasons we have brought forward the amendment is that we wonder what are the reasons for, and the purpose of, the clause within the Bill. Does it reflect a report in the Observer last November? The article stated:
	"Lordswood Girls' School—judged in government league tables to be the best in the country for improving pupil performance—is planning to sue Ofsted after discovering that two pages of a critical review were identical to an earlier report on Parkside School in Bradford.
	"Ofsted admitted this weekend that the inspection team for Lordswood failed to give an accurate and fair portrayal in the section relating to leadership and management of the school. It has promised to amend the report and add an addendum on its website about the school".
	The report continued: "But [Jane] Hattatt", the headmistress,
	"who has been head of the 900-pupil school in Harborne for 15 years, and who launched a high-profile complaint against the Ofsted inspection system in February, plans to take her concerns to an independent adjudicator. 'I have no confidence in the system', she said. 'I would advise anyone with concerns who is going through the complaints procedure to keep on going because they need to be challenged'".
	Clearly it is not a good idea to encourage schools to pursue the inspectors through the courts—we are very sympathetic with that—but we should like to know a little more of the background as to why the Government have felt it necessary to include in the Bill what is, in effect, a privilege clause. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: I shall say more than a little in response, which may help during the later stages of the Bill.
	In essence, the subsection is not new but a re-enactment. It establishes that the chief inspector is a Crown appointee. This effectively has benefits. It provides society with a very powerful tool—a truly independent chief inspector who is able to operate within government and yet is able to criticise the policies of the day if they are not contributing to the ambitions we all share for good education.
	In conducting his inspections the chief inspector makes judgments, as we know, upon the school and how it meets the criteria that the chief inspector must report against. A truly independent inspector reports without fear or favour on the evidence as he sees it. He provides opportunities for the school to have causes of concern considered and he drafts inspection reports in a way to avoid identifying individuals in any negative statements within reports.
	Inevitably there will be cases where the school is not satisfied with the judgment, but being able to publish reports that are critical of a school's performance is necessary and has contributed greatly to the improvement across the system over the past 12 years.
	Of course, the chief inspector is a Crown servant who must adhere to the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. He must present his findings as he sees them. To remove the protection afforded by the clause that has existed since 1992 would undermine his independence. Schools can challenge the findings. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was clear that a welter of litigation would not be beneficial, so I shall not labour the point.
	We talked about the complaints procedure earlier. To pile on the agony further, the chief inspector is an appointee of the Crown and is liable to legal proceedings in tort, which would include an action for defamation by virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act. While it may be that the defence of qualified privilege would apply to reports published by the chief inspector in any event, Clause 10(3) clarifies the legal position where there might otherwise be some doubt.
	Under the common law, the publication of inspection reports may be subject to the defence of qualified privilege in any event. However, since the common law doctrine of qualified privilege may be applied on a case by case basis, it is not possible to say with certainty that qualified privilege will attach to the publication of inspection reports for all purposes. Clause 10(3) removes doubt about that. I hope that that is helpful.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: Before the Minister sits down, I want to add that as a former chief inspector I have much sympathy with the Government's position. The reservations expressed would be more easily allayed if a strong appeals procedure were established.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. We had a lengthy discussion this morning on complaints and appeals procedures. It is right that we have an acceptable form of complaints procedure within the framework of the inspection regime. Clearly, as a Crown appointee Her Majesty's Chief Inspector is covered by the defence of qualified privilege. As the Minister said, the clause reinforces that, and it was helpful to have his explanation. I had not realised that it was a straight re-enactment, so I am grateful to the Minister for his elucidation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 52:
	After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
	"PROVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES BY LEAs IN ENGLAND
	(1) Any local education authority in England may provide a school inspection service for schools within their area.
	(2) In this section "school inspection service", in relation to any local education authority in England, means a service providing for the inspection of schools (other than Academies, city technology colleges and city technology colleges for the technology of the arts) under section 5 by officers of the authority.
	(3) Any school inspection service provided by a local education authority in England may, in addition to providing for the inspection of schools which are maintained by them, provide for the inspection of schools which are not maintained by them.
	(4) Any school inspection service provided by a local education authority in England must be operated by the authority in such a way as can reasonably be expected to ensure that the full cost of providing the service is recovered by way of charges made by the authority to those using the service.
	(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) make provision as to the making of tenders by local education authorities in England,
	(b) make provision with respect to the accounts to be kept by local education authorities in connection with any school inspection services provided by them, and
	(c) make such incidental and supplemental provision with respect to school inspection services provided by local education authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."

Baroness Walmsley: The purpose of Amendment No. 52 is to ensure a greater role for LEAs in England with respect to school improvement by allowing them to provide inspection services. If, as the Government state, inspections are to be a lever for school improvement, there is no reason why LEAs, who have the responsibility for school improvement, should not have their hands on that lever.
	The amendment re-enacts similar provisions in the School Inspections Act 1996 in relation to England and Clause 51 re-enacts Section 24 of that Act in its application to Wales.
	In line with the provision under Clause 51 in Wales, the amendment would enable a local authority to provide a school inspection service for schools within its area. It allows the service to be provided for both maintained and non-maintained schools and requires the local authority to recover the costs through charges made to those using the service. It provides that the Secretary of State may by regulation make provision on the making of tenders and the keeping of accounts by local education authorities. Under the proposals for joint area reviews local authorities will be accountable for the performance of schools, and yet under the new relationship proposals their influence on the operations of schools is limited. This proposal would extend that influence.
	In addition, we spoke on Tuesday about the benefits of regional arrangements for inspections—in particular, the benefits in Wales being a small country. Those benefits would apply here, too, where the local knowledge of the LEA about the ethos of local schools and the context in which they operate would be very helpful background to the inspection process. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I have brief points to make. First, none of us is unaware of the importance of the work of LEAs. On the other hand, some of us are a little cautious about going back on what seems to be an admirable policy in lightening the burden of the bureaucracy—that much used word—in inspections.
	I wonder whether the amendment would effectively go back on restrictions on the powers of Ofsted to inspect worship and religious education in voluntary-aided schools. It does not have that power at the moment, and the inspection is done competently and properly by various denominational authorities. I speaking not just for the Church of England. Sometimes we have to apologise for that these days. I think that the Roman Catholics would be even more sensitive about this, so I need to ask the noble Baroness that question now.

Baroness Walmsley: I shall certainly attempt to answer the question, although if I am wrong, I shall write to the right reverend Prelate about it. I do not think that the amendment would restrict that. Religious education is inspected by appropriate people, and I do not think that my amendment would get in the way of that.
	The right reverend Prelate has caught me slightly on the hop, and it is an issue that I had not considered. I shall check up on it.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The last thing that I want to be seen to be standing for is a ghetto mentality for voluntary-aided schools. I want to be clear on that question, and I speak for other groups as well.

Lord Dearing: While the noble Baroness is still in action, perhaps she can clarify something for me. I read her amendment as a service rather than an imposition. Therefore, it is an offer that may or may not be accepted. My experience is that there are times when it is useful for schools to look to the LEA for advice. They may say, "You have the expertise. It may cost a few pounds, but we will pay you.". On that basis, I can say yes.

Baroness Walmsley: The noble Lord is correct. The amendment refers to the tendering process. It is a service that would be offered.

Lord Filkin: I am extremely in favour of Members of the Committee asking people other than me difficult questions. The clause applies to England only.
	The amendment would reintroduce a provision in Section 24 of the School Inspections Act 1996, which enables an LEA to provide an inspection service for schools. The involvement of LEAs in the inspection of schools has declined markedly in the past few years. In 2001 LEAs represented about a third of the 125 providers of inspections nationally. In the past two years the number of providers of inspection services has fallen to two dozen and has not included any LEA providers. I suppose that they are not doing Ofsted inspections in that form currently.
	We also think that it is consistent with the general development of a more strategic role for local authorities as the champion of children and education rather than necessarily the direct provider of services. The provision in Section 24 of the 1996 Act is no longer needed under the new arrangements, under which Ofsted will let contracts to a number of regional inspection consortia—substantial groups of inspection consortia. However, it will still be possible for local authorities to be involved in school inspections by subcontracting with regional consortia. Therefore, it will be possible for local authority advisers to take part in school inspections. That experience will benefit advisers and the authorities for whom they work.
	Clause 50 of the Bill also provides a local education authority with power to inspect a school maintained by the authority, where it needs to do so for a particular purpose in order to enable the authority to discharge its statutory responsibilities. That power is still there, as it should be, without the local authority being seen as an essential provider of services to Ofsted. They can be a sub-contractor who is part of a wider consortium. I hope that that is helpful and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will not press her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the past, a third of inspection services have been provided by local authorities. In the new situation of the "light touch" and the "single conversation", it could well be that more LEAs would be interested in providing such services in the future. I thought that the suggestion that they should continue to be allowed to do so as the prime mover was interesting. I accept what the Minister said about advisers being able to subcontract, but that is not the same as being in charge of the inspection. I shall read the Minister's comments carefully and consider whether we shall want to come back to this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Duties of Chief Inspector where school causes or has caused concern]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 7, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "that the school is in need of additional support"

Baroness Walmsley: In moving Amendment No. 53, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 56, 64, 70, 91 and 94, which are grouped with it. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to change the designation of schools in "special measures" and those requiring "significant improvement" to a new, more positive, categorisation: "schools in need of additional support".
	This is not just semantics, although it has to be said that the tone of the designation can affect the morale of a school; it is also about the right of the school to appropriate support. In its document Bringing down the barriers, the NUT argues that the terms "special measures", "significant weaknesses" or "notice of improvement" should be replaced by the term "schools in need of additional support". Such support may involve external support. If external evaluation identifies problems in a school, the local authority should be required to provide support, including advisers and seconded teachers based in the school. There should be no "one size fits all" deadline for improvement. That is the NUT's view on this and I have considerable sympathy with it.
	The initial Ofsted consultation on the future of inspection, which was published in June 2004, states that "schools designated as requiring significant improvement" suggests that the inspectors' judgments would be largely reliant on performance data, even though it is widely recognised that the accuracy and reliability of such quantitative data are not always secure. The consultation document also implied that such schools would be reinspected within a year. It is important that LEAs should have the responsibility for supporting schools with problems, including the provision of additional targeted resources. The progress of each school toward resolving its problems should be evaluated on merit by validation teams and LEAs.
	I think there is a great deal of merit in a system similar to that in Guernsey. There, if serious problems are identified as a result of an external validation review, the school is given three months to draw up an action plan to address the problems identified. It also has active support and input from an external adviser, such as an EMI, to enable the school to make progress in the right direction. A year after the initial visit, the school is revisited by the external validation review team to look at the progress that has been made. The emphasis is on supporting the school. There are no labels such as "special measures" or "improvement notices".
	All noble Lords are keen on ensuring that the inspection process results in a school improving. It is important that we are very clear that schools have a right to the appropriate support to make that improvement. It should be done in a way that sounds supportive to the school and makes it feel that it is not being punished or criticised, but is being helped. Even if there is fault, or less than the best teaching practice, the carrot always works better than the stick. Semantics are important, but the right to appropriate support is extremely important. I beg to move.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I have put my name to Amendments Nos. 91 and 94 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I agree with everything that she has said. It is not just a question of semantics or political correctness. The phrases in her amendments usually—but not always, as the noble Baroness indicated—show what a school needs; that is, the extra time, resources and staff needed to cope with the special needs of often multiply-damaged children. I had this argument years ago, when I served on the ILEA. Personally, I would pay teachers in such schools double and have a contract to ensure that they achieved whatever they declared they would achieve within a limited period. That is what schools need. They need more teachers—the best teachers—and outside support than schools in middle class areas that are better able to cope and to benefit from the education provided in the generality of schooling. I hope that, as well as approving these amendments, the Minister will indicate that these schools will get the extra resources that they undoubtedly need.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: One of the pleasures in taking part in this kind of debate is the evidence that there are very few ivory towers here. I do not live in an ivory tower. On Tuesday afternoon, when I was in your Lordships' House, I was handed a note from Portsmouth that told me that St Luke's School, which is not in a middle class area of the country, had just been designated the seventh most improved school in the country. Having watched that school, and others in other parts of the country, going through the process of being "improved", persuades me that these amendments merit careful attention and possibly even improvement.

Lord Filkin: This is an interesting opportunity to go back to issues that we touched on briefly at Second Reading because they are part of the central architecture of the Bill. Therefore, this amendment gives an opportunity to engage with those issues.
	After a lot of consideration and consultation, we decided on two categories for schools causing concern; that is, "special measures" and "significant improvement". These categories, defined in Clause 43, underpin the provisions in the Bill relating to the schools. The amendments in this group would provide for one category of cause for concern, "in need of additional support", in relation to the schools causing concern provisions in Clauses 12, 14 and 43. We should pause on that before we engage with the question whether one uses positive or negative language.
	The Bill seeks to capture the differences between schools that are very seriously failing and there is no confidence that they will turn themselves around. It is the most serious signal possible. In different language, that has been part of the history and development of Ofsted designation and governmental interventions to try to turn schools around.
	Without being able to recollect off the cuff the figures, the experience has been a powerful one—that although it is ghastly for a school to be so designated, sometimes one has to say that a spade is a spade. The consequence of that is that although it must be dreadful for heads or governors to know that they are put into that category, the need for improvement is so massive and serious that it also engages a range of other action, such as planning and intervention, and the evidence from that has been that schools so designated have turned around. I wish that I could remember the date of it. No doubt I shall.
	If we went from that system and sought to put everything into one category, as is suggested, and did not make the differentiation that we are talking about, either the schools needing significant improvement would be put into the very heavy sin bin category or we would compromise on the very heavy intervention sin bin category because we had many others that needed significant improvement. That would not be good public policy. For those reasons, I do not believe that it is right.
	We agree, of course—we are full square with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on this—that schools facing particular difficulties should receive additional support. It is not a case of saying, "Let us give you some marks and then leave you to sin or fail for ever more". It is a case of trying to evaluate fairly where schools are not performing and, as part of a whole range of processes, to turn them round and make them better.
	Under the Bill's arrangements, a designation will continue to trigger such additional support where necessary. In the new relationship schools, we will be able to look to the school improvement partner for ongoing advice and support. The school improvement partners will have important roles in relation to schools that fall into any "cause for concern" category. They will work closely with the school to address weaknesses, mobilising additional support from the LEAs or other agencies where appropriate.
	We recognise the wish to see more positive terminology used for schools that cause concern. However, we do not believe that it would be right to refer to schools as "in need of additional support" in that terminology. That would be misleading. The term "special measures" is now well understood in the education world and by parents. It is synonymous with school failure. All concerned—pupils, parents, LEAs, governors and staff—recognise that a designation of special measures is very serious and that radical and urgent action needs to be taken to turn round the school. I believe that children and parents in such schools need that clear signal for those limited number of very serious cases. The fudging should stop and there should be a recognition that things must change.
	The designation of "in need of additional support" would carry the implication that matters were not so bad, that all a school needed was a little extra support. The risk is that it would be taken less seriously by schools and LEAs and would not trigger the urgent action, including the very significant support that sometimes forms part of it, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, wants to see, that the special measures categorisation currently brings with it. We therefore risk undermining our policies to tackle school failure rigorously and drive up standards.
	The "schools causing concern" categorisation is about more than just identifying schools that need additional support. It is certain that most, if not all, schools would welcome additional resources, and many would welcome additional support. Schools that fall into one of the two "cause for concern" categories will need a range of challenge, support or intervention. The lesson from our experience of school improvement is that the solution must be tailor-made for the school.
	Every school can improve. A key role for SIPs will be to challenge schools to have the highest aspirations and expectations. The new "significant improvement" category will help to identify those schools that are not performing as well as they should. The remedy for such a school is not necessarily, although it may be, a range of additional support. Where a school already has strong leadership, it may be able to develop strategies to improve performance, with the school improvement partner playing a part as necessary.
	As we all know, leadership is a key factor in the success of a school. In some cases of schools causing concern, weak leadership will be a major issue. Intervention may be necessary to secure effective leadership and management of the school. It would be misleading for parents and the wider community simply to refer to such a school as being in need of additional support. It would not. It would need new, stronger, tougher, more skilled, more effective leadership. We believe that the Bill's arrangements provide the necessary framework for accountability and intervention to tackle failure and drive up standards.
	The current definitions have been successful in raising standards. We believe that the revised arrangements build on that success and will ensure that the schools that need significant improvement are identified, supported and challenged to raise standards. The current system for schools causing concern has therefore worked, and the designations have concentrated minds on remedying weaknesses.
	Our proposals are designed to build on the success of the current arrangements. We still need to single out the very worst cases—special measures—and to recognise that in some cases improvement is necessary but that the failure is not so serious. Since 1997, over 1,200 secondary schools have recovered from special measures. As a consequence, over 400,000 pupils have benefited from special measures.
	In summary, although I do not believe that a shift to a single category would be right and although I believe that support is a necessary component of improvement in many cases, one needs to identify the cases in which it is not only about support but may also be about leadership.
	I am not sure that I can add anything further. Having said a good deal already, if there are points that I have missed, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, can bear a letter from me.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am delighted that 1,200 schools in special measures have turned around, but I do not believe that it is necessarily down to the term "special measures". On the contrary, I believe that it is down to the big package of support that they receive.
	To some extent, I take the Minister's point that one category will cover an enormous spectrum of what some may call failure. I may perhaps come back on Report with two categories, if I decide to pursue the matter.
	I do not find myself agreeing with the Minister's suggestion that only negative language will spur people on to greater things. One of the most difficult things that I have done recently was in the Antarctic last January, almost to the day one year ago, when I was with the Science and Technology Select Committee. We were asked to abseil down into a crevasse, which was not so difficult, but climbing up the rope to get out was extremely difficult. If the trainers had shouted at me, "Baroness Walmsley, you are failing, you are terrible, you are weak, why are you not doing it?" instead of saying, "You can do it, you are really doing well, come on, just a little more", I do not think that I would ever have made it to the top and would still be down below in the ice.
	I shall consider carefully whether or not I want to return to this matter at the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Page 7, line 3, at end insert "or
	(c) that the school is likely to fail,"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: Amendment No. 54 in relation to England and Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 in relation to Wales would allow the respective chief inspector in each country to take action to notify the Secretary of State, the LEA or the proprietor of a school whether in his opinion the school was likely to fail.
	We are concerned that, as the Bill currently stands, the chief inspector can recommend that action be taken only if special measures are required or, under the new phraseology, if the school requires significant improvement. That suggests that action to improve a school could be taken only once the school was already in difficulty. Our amendments would therefore introduce the category "likely to fail", allowing the inspector to recommend action if he believed that the school was likely to encounter serious concerns at a future date.
	We cannot afford to jeopardise the future or the education of a single child. Action to improve a school may take a number of months to implement, with results taking even longer to come to fruition. All the time, the educational attainments and life chances of the pupils will suffer. The introduction of this new category would allow action to be taken before the problem worsened. We should allow the inspector to decide whether he or she believes that there is a serious enough problem just around the corner to merit immediate action, thereby nipping in the bud any concerns.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 93 and 95 in this group. As the Bill currently stands in relation to Wales, a school would require significant improvement only if it had already been deemed to be performing significantly less well than it might in all the circumstances reasonably be expected to perform. This suggests that action to improve a school could be taken only once the school was already in difficulties.
	Our amendment would therefore introduce the category, "likely to perform significantly less well", allowing the inspector to recommend action if, in his view, he believed the school was likely to encounter serious concerns at a future date and was likely to perform significantly less well. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: The Bill provides two categorise of schools that cause concern, as defined in Clause 43—special measures or significant improvement. Amendments Nos. 54, 87, 88 and 93, would add an additional category of school causing concern—a school likely to fail.
	We will reflect on that but do not think that it is appropriate. We appreciate that the current definition of special measures refers to a school likely to fail to provide a satisfactory standard of education. We propose to move way from that. Under the revised definition in Clause 43, a school's capacity to improve will be taken into account, which is an important shift, because it makes a judgment as to whether that school is likely to move from its position of weakness as a consequence of the leadership, the commitment and the honesty of the self-evaluation and so on.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I agree that this is a more positive approach, because it recognises the capacity to move forward. This will be welcomed by schools which have made good progress and can show they have the capacity to improve further.
	Amendment No. 95 would mean a school would also require significant improvement if it was likely to perform significantly less well than might reasonably be expected. Again, we do not believe that this would be appropriate, as it would introduce a negative element into a judgment, which would be unhelpful to schools. The focus of inspectors will be on the progress being made by schools. In making the significant improvement judgment, inspectors will give specific attention to the progress of pupils and the value added by a school. They will consider how a school's performance compares with other schools in similar contexts. This will ensure that schools that are not doing as well as they should, are identified and, given additional support and challenges, can raise their performance.
	The Bill's arrangements provide the necessary framework for accountability and intervention to tackle failure and drive up standards.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not unsympathetic to his comments, the proposals in the Bill, or, indeed, the previous amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am mindful how positive language can help enormously in a paradigm shift. However, I am concerned that warmer language should not simply be an excuse for inaction. We need to examine this again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 7, line 5, after "writing," insert "including a summary of the report"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: This series of amendments would reintroduce the requirement on the inspector to produce a summary of his report and to send it to the appropriate authority when he was informing them of his particular decision.
	Again, I stress that we support the intent to speed up the inspection process, but what advantage is there to be gained from ending the requirement to produce a summary in time, cost or quality of information? Can the Minister explain how he believes ending this process will assist and speed up the present arrangements?
	Surely, in the case of the chief inspector informing the Secretary of State or relevant LEA that a school was to be placed in special measures, a full report would already have been produced. Therefore condensing this information into a summary would require minimal additional effort and time.
	Our other concern is that communicating such a decision in the first instance would be based on the opinion of the chief inspector without any accompanying documents or evidence. Surely the Secretary of State and her officials would at least like to see a summary of the report before the main report arrives. We believe that the summary report is a useful document which, at the outset, informs all interested parties of the key findings of an inspector's report. It is also likely to be more attractive to parents and pupils in a more reader-friendly and lighter format.
	We are not convinced that abolishing such a requirement is either a sensible move or likely to bring substantial benefits in speeding up the process. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. These minor amendments seek to clarify the wording of the Bill and to extend its provisions to pupils.
	Amendment No. 61 would replace the current wording, which is slightly obscure. Clause 13(4)(c) refers to taking,
	"such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure . . . every registered parent of a registered pupil".
	I do not believe that there is such a thing as a registered parent. It also refers to receiving a copy of the report. At the moment, parents receive only a copy of the summary of the report and it seems absurd that they should have to receive and that the school should have to duplicate the report and send a full copy to every parent, many of whom will not wish to read it. They would prefer to receive a summary.
	So the purpose of our amendment is to replace that wording and to do away with the concept of the registered parent so that the parents of pupils registered at the school receive a summary of the report and may request a copy of the full report. That would be sensible. If they wish to receive the full report, they can have a copy. Most parents would not want a full report and would be perfectly happy to receive the summary.
	Amendment No. 63 takes up the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, this morning, regarding treating pupils as full stakeholders within the school. That amendment seeks to clarify that pupils should know about the report and, if they wish to see it, they should have access, either to the summary or to the full report, if they wish and as is appropriate. Clearly most pupils in a primary school would not be involved, but some senior pupils might wish to see it. Certainly some pupils in a secondary school might wish to see a copy of a full report.
	So, the purpose of these two amendments is, first, to make clear that the school does not have to go to the length of producing the report in full and circulating it to all parents, and, secondly, to extend access to the report to pupils.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I wish to comment briefly on the process and then on the amendments. In listening to this and to Tuesday's debates, I have constantly been struck by the difficulty that we face. I know that it is not the first time where one is trying to legislate in a simplifying way in the context of something that is much more complex. Many of the amendments fall in a sort of "no-person's land" between a legislative process which is about freeing up and simplifying in a context in which people say, "Ah, but might there be problems and do we entirely trust each other?". The amendment is another example of that.
	My comments may betray that I am a devil's advocate or that I am even more cynical than everyone else. But might there not be an unintended consequence of the summary, in that the report itself will go back to being long? In the academic world it is now common to have English-speaking summaries at the end of articles of immense complexity, which allows the articles to become even more complex. That probably means that the scholars read the summaries rather than the articles.
	In making that somewhat whimsical remark, perhaps I may ask whether the amendments might produce the opposite of what is intended. I speak as a parent as well as a cleric.

Lord Filkin: Not for the first time, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth has put his finger on the kind of dilemma that governments face and that we are facing in this debate. One is trying to simplify and yet, within government, there is always a tension between that and seeking to move to less regulation, less specification and less dirigisme. At the same time, there are always one or two in the corner who will say, "Well, that's all right for you but we must have X, Y or Z". That is a characteristic of government and we are part of that tension.
	What is different here is that one of the key features of the new inspection arrangements is that the inspection report is meant to be much more focused. Secondly, it is an inspection report that sits on the self-evaluation. So, whereas at present Ofsted goes in and almost measures, evaluates, quantifies and describes everything for itself and writes up the basis on which it comes to its conclusions, the process that we are now talking about is very different.
	In a sense, through the inspection process and the report, Ofsted is commenting on the self-evaluation of the school and on the enormously powerful set of data that has been built up over 12 years of the process showing objectively how the school is performing. There is no need for all that information to be put into the report because, effectively, it is a commentary on the inspectorate's judgment on the performance data which are accessible, and on the school's evaluation and therefore its judgment on what is really important about the school's performance and its capacity to improve.
	As a consequence, while current reports are 40 or more pages in length, under the new system they will drop to around six pages because they will focus on the key essentials that need to change. I think that it may be helpful to the Committee if I send examples of those to all Front-Benchers and to all who have taken part. They will give a flavour of the fundamental difference in the process.
	It is not a matter of seeking to quantify and define absolutely everything and then, from that mass of documented detail, come to a conclusion. It is basically a case of taking two foundation sources—the evaluation and the data—and then, through the process of inspection and the interactions that go with it, coming to judgments which focus on what matters most. From our previous debates, I think that what matters most in inspections is being clear about what matters most. It is not a description of the 75 things that it would be nice to change but about the five or six things that really must change. Focusing in that way is crucial and that is why the report can be completed in six pages.
	While parents currently receive only the summary and have to ask for the full report if they want it, in future they will receive the full report as a matter of course. They will have the whole job because parents are seen as the prime audience for the report. Ofsted is currently using focus groups of parents to check that the new style reports meet their needs, and that will be an ongoing process. So far, the early feedback is that parents have been extremely positive about the change.
	In terms of the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, I have said that a summary does not need to be sent because parents will receive the full report. I have also spoken about the arrangements for involving pupils in inspection and reporting to pupils on the outcomes.
	The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, to Clause 12, which sets out the inspector's duties where a school causes concern, include a requirement to send a summary of the report to the Secretary of State, local authority or proprietor when giving notice that the school has been identified as causing concern.
	I am not trying to tease the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, but I should also mention that all the reports will be available on the website and the full report will be sent to the appropriate authorities. The chief inspector already has a duty to send the reports to the local authority or proprietor, and therefore there is no need to increase burdens by requiring each report to be sent to the Secretary of State when he is notified that a school causes concern.
	Replacing the current lengthy report and separate summary with the new style report will therefore not place additional burdens on schools or governing bodies. But it will mean that parents and others have direct access to the full outcome of the inspection.
	I think that by far the most useful thing that I can say is that I shall send Members of the Committee examples of the summaries so that they can get a flavour of why we think this is both possible and highly desirable as a different form of outcome for the inspection process. I hope that that has been helpful.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his reply and I am very glad that he said he will send us some examples. I was going to ask whether such examples existed. We shall look at them with interest and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Destination of reports: maintained schools]:
	[Amendments Nos. 57 to 63 not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Measures to be taken by local education authority]:
	[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 65:
	Page 8, line 18, after "must" insert ", after consultation with the appropriate body for a maintained school and the head teacher of that school"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 65, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 to 70 and 76. The purpose of this set of amendments is to ensure that the action statement prepared by the local authority where a school is deemed to be in need of significant improvement or special measures is produced in consultation with the school concerned and, in particular, with the head teacher and the governing body of that school.
	When a school is in special measures or requires significant improvement, the Bill places sole responsibility for action on the local education authority without mention of the contribution that the school, or any other body with a key part to play in the school's performance, is expected to make. LEAs cannot be expected to improve a school's performance without there being a legal requirement for the school and the other relevant bodies also to contribute. This is of particular concern as, under the new relationship with schools, it is proposed that a school improvement partner will work primarily with the school, although it will be managed by the LEA.
	The limited number of days available to the school improvement partner is likely to result in a disconnection between the school and the LEA. The LEA has had little or no involvement with the school. It is not reasonable for the LEA to find itself responsible for a school when it goes into special measures. Again, it is not reasonable for local authorities to be judged against the performance of schools in their area if they have direct involvement with a school only once it is in special measures and then cannot guarantee the support of the school and other bodies in trying to secure its improvement.
	Another issue that concerns us is leaving out the responsibilities of governing bodies. Under the new arrangements the proposed reduction of involvement in inspection by governors is disappointing and surprising. The important role played by governors in school improvement was first highlighted by Ofsted itself in 1994. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education Act 2002 set out ways in which governing bodies should contribute to school improvement. Subsequently, that was used to underpin successive inspection frameworks relating to the leadership and management of schools.
	The current inspection framework indicates clearly that governors are expected to have a significant leadership role. That role is not intended to be performed in isolation, but in conjunction with the head teacher and other school staff as part of the corporate team. However, the proposed marginalisation of the governing body in inspection would not support such strategic involvement in the school. Such an approach seems to us to contradict the research evidence that has found a very strong association between the inspectors' judgment of a school's effectiveness and their judgment of its governing body. That finding is supported by evidence from Ofsted, which similarly reported a clear association between effective schools and effective governing bodies.
	In conclusion, in moving the amendment and in speaking to the series of amendments grouped with it, we feel that, where a school needs to be turned around, the team element involved has proved to be significant. It is wrong to move away from that team element, back to placing the sole responsibility on the local education authority when often the local education authority will have but a minimal role. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: Sometimes the problem is that until the Government have expressed, as a result of probing amendments, the intended system in more detail, it is difficult to spot what on earth is going on. On reflection, it is sometimes an inefficient process, but now is not the time to speculate on that.
	I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, says what she has said. I would share her horror if we intended to do what she worries we will do. But that is not so. We would not for a second consider that it would be remotely sensible to place the sole responsibility for turning a school around on others, to the exclusion of the school and governors. Nor do we believe that the local authority has a minimal involvement in the process of deciding what is going on in a school before, during and after an inspection report. We would expect the reverse: we would expect that the local authority, through its SIP—if I can use that ghastly abbreviation—would be very actively involved in understanding that. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has indicated, a good local authority knows where there are worrying areas and it would focus its efforts accordingly.
	The amendments would introduce additional requirements to the arrangements for schools causing concern, including the action to be taken by local authorities and others. Amendment No. 65 would require the local authority to consult the appropriate body for, and the head teacher of, a maintained school before preparing a written statement of action that it proposes. We totally agree that the LEA should consult with the school in preparing the statement. It is essential that the head teacher is involved from the outset. That already happens without any legal requirement. It must and will continue in the future.
	Where a school is judged to be a cause for concern, inspectors give oral feedback to governors and to the head teacher at the end of an inspection and, therefore, the head receives early notification of the inspection findings. It is then for the governors and the head teacher to consider how to address the issues identified by inspectors. The current guidance from the department makes it clear that governors, head teachers and staff should be closely involved in drawing up school action plans. I can give the Committee an assurance that that will continue and will be made clear in guidance in the new legislation.
	A similar consideration applies in relation to Amendment No. 76. That would require the proprietor of a non-maintained school to consult the head teacher before preparing a written statement of action, when notified by the chief inspector. Again, such consultation will happen as a matter of course. It is not necessary to cover it in legislation, but it will be in guidance.
	In all cases, therefore, we expect the head teacher, the staff and the governors to be closely involved in decisions about action to be taken to address issues raised by inspectors. The current guidance makes that clear, as it will in the future.
	Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 would require the LEA's statement to include any action it recommends the school or any others should take and the timescale for this action. I think that that is unnecessary. As we have explained, in practice, LEA's statements will be drawn up in consultation with the school and anyone else whom the LEA considers has a part to play in securing improvements.
	Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 would require the LEA to send its written statement of action to the head teacher and governing body. Once again, it is not necessary to put that in legislation. Much of the action needed will fall to the head teacher and governing body. It is unthinkable that the LEA would fail to send a copy to them and anyone else with a role to play. We will ensure that this is also covered in guidance.
	Amendment No. 70 would extend to significant improvement cases the Secretary of State's power to specify a shorter period than prescribed for the LEA to prepare the action plan. We do not see a need to extend the Secretary of State's powers in this way. The intention is that regulations will prescribe 10 working days from receipt of the inspection report as the deadline for the LEA to prepare its statement of action. In the majority of cases this will ensure attention is given in a timely manner to the needs of schools judged to require special measures or significant improvement. In a few cases the needs of a school may require more urgent action. The clause gives the Secretary of State power to ensure that this happens. It is appropriate for only the categories of school which give most cause for concern.
	The Bill is intended to simplify existing arrangements for schools causing concern, including the requirements for follow-up action by LEAs and schools. Clearly, this simplification would be undermined by the amendments, but the thrust of those amendments will be protected by the guidance that I have indicated—and given a commitment to the Committee—will follow through from the Bill. I hope that clarification has therefore reduced the need to press the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that clarification. In some senses it is reassuring. It raises exactly the same issues as those we talked about in relation to appeals procedures and the involvement of pupils, and so forth. We have the assurance that of course this will happen and that it will be set out in guidance. Yet, in a sense there is always the question of, "Is it going to be set out in guidance?". Is it not useful to have at least some short mention of these issues in the Bill in order to make sure that guidance is there and that it follows the wishes of the legislature? That is the reason for seeking to have this provision written on to the face of the Bill.

Lord Filkin: Without labouring the point, as a government Minister I have given a commitment to the Committee that this will happen. Noble Lords will know what happens if it does not.

Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. If the issue is not specifically laid down in legislation, what happens is that, over a period of two or three years, different people come and go and shortcuts are taken. Therefore, there needs to be more than just guidance. We keep getting assurances from the Government, but we would like to see some of these issues on the face of the Bill so that we know that they will still happen in three or four years' time. Ministers and inspectors come and go and some of these issues might be lost if they are not in the Bill. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on this issue. It covers not only this point but also several points in the Bill.

Lord Filkin: Without wrecking our process by drifting into philosophy, there is a judgment about where that line is drawn—we had discussions about that this morning—on issues like this which are essentially about important administrative procedure. I think that we have to resist cluttering up primary legislation with detailed specifications of process. That is what guidance is for. I repeat: Hansard is for ever. If we have given a commitment, we have given a commitment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for his further clarification. Obviously it is extremely useful to have in Hansard the full explanation of the Government's intention here. Nevertheless, there are occasions where it is useful to provide the little hook within the primary legislation on which to hang the secondary legislation. I think that we shall come back to this at later stages of the Bill, because issues of principle are involved on which we may wish to provide some little hooks within the primary legislation. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 66 to 70 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Destination of reports: non-maintained schools]:
	[Amendments Nos. 71 to 75 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Statement to be prepared by proprietor of school]:
	[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Functions of Chief Inspector]:
	[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Annual and other reports to Assembly]:
	[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hanningfield: We were moving on so well that I felt trepidation at getting up again. In opposing the Question that Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill we hope to elicit from the Minister more detail on how the advisory panel will operate, its remit and purpose. The Bill and Explanatory Notes provide scant information on the panel's remit. We do not even know how many members it will comprise. What role, therefore, does the noble Baroness envisage? We should be careful to ensure that we do not just create another quango.
	Who will choose the members of the advisory panel: will the First Minister, the Welsh Education Minister or the Assembly have the final say over the appointments? How will the independence and impartiality of each member be guaranteed? What criteria will be used to judge each candidate? How much will the panel cost each year, and where will it be based? I note that much of those details, such as members' remuneration, will be left to the regulation-making powers of the Assembly. However, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could shed some light on this particularly cloudy area.
	Why, if the National Assembly for Wales believes it would be useful and advantageous to have such a panel, does the Secretary of State feel that she can do perfectly well without it? I have heard that our new Secretary of State is an extremely talented and gifted individual, but why do we not have such a panel in England if the Welsh are to have one?

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I, too, find it difficult to see why the Assembly requires a panel to advise it on matters relating to the inspectorate, bearing in mind that it has a Minister in the Assembly Government and a committee of Assembly Members dedicated to education. They also have Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (HMCI), a Crown appointment, on which the Assembly is to be consulted.
	One would have thought that the chief inspector and the education committee would provide sufficient advice. It might be argued that further advice from a panel, presumably consisting largely of professionals, would be superfluous and could even cause confusion in decision-making. On reading the clause it is noticeable that the Bill is uncertain on the functions of the advisory panel, other than its own appointment, fixing remuneration and allowances, ensuring co-operation with HMCI and making reports to the Assembly. The proposed panel gives the impression of being superfluous from its inception. There is little that it can do that HMCI cannot do better or more authoritatively.
	The briefing on the Bill that we received from the Government Whips' Office states:
	"the Assembly discharges a range of responsibilities with regard to Estyn (the Chief Inspector's Office) related to appointments, agreement of terms and conditions and funding. Currently, there are no mechanisms to provide the Assembly with independent advice on such matters".
	Is a special panel really necessary for those functions? I doubt it very much. Surely, they are matters for the Minister and civil servants. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, who covers a far wider spectrum of services and is also a Crown appointment, does not require a special panel attached to him and his office to advise the Assembly. I am not aware of any other similar case. This panel is an Assembly quango by another name and I am surprised to see the proposal in the Bill bearing in mind that the Assembly Government are currently setting alight the long-promised bonfire of Welsh quangos.
	In fairness, I should point out that the NUT believes that the panel will be welcomed by teachers in Wales, but that welcome was extended in the context of the inspectorate's increased accountability to the Assembly after a period when the NUT endured what it described as a punitive system of inspections. It is not at all clear that the panel can have a role in changing perceived attitudes on the part of the inspectorate. I do not think that the panel will be able to change the inspectorate's functions at all. Any change of that nature in the style of the inspectorate, and so on, will have to come from the inspectorate itself or from the Bill.
	Like my noble friend, I do not find the case for the proposed panel at all compelling; quite the reverse. It is an unnecessary addition to the bureaucratic burden on the education budget. Admittedly it is a permissive clause; it is a "may" clause; but that is no reason for us to allow it to proceed in the Bill.

Baroness Walmsley: On these Benches we do not support the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. We feel that the Assembly might perhaps be somewhat undermined. It should be allowed to keep its panel. The situation in Wales, as people often say, is somewhat different. In England we have the Education Select Committee in another place; they do not have that in Wales, therefore an advisory panel of experts may very well be most useful in advising the Assembly on inspection matters. Wales is different and I would like to see Clause 21 left in the Bill.

Baroness Andrews: I am grateful for the support of one part of the Opposition. I hope to bring the other part round to my way of thinking by the time I have explained in a bit more detail what the panel is supposed to do. I take on board the specific questions asked by both noble Lords; if I cannot answer them all then I will write.
	Clause 21 provides the Assembly with a new and necessary power to establish through regulations a panel to advise the Assembly on any matter relating to the functions of the chief inspector. It might be worth stating the role of Estyn in relation to the Assembly. Estyn is independent of but funded by the National Assembly for Wales under Section 104 of the Government of Wales Act. It is accountable to the Assembly in relation to financial matters and to the audit committee. It has a key role in raising standards in quality of education and training across Wales in all areas through inspection and advice. Although the management of the inspectorate is a matter for the chief inspector, the Assembly is required to discharge a range of responsibilities with regard to Estyn. It is in relation to those other responsibilities that we seek to enable the Assembly to discharge its duties with a little more dialogue and enrichment, without imposing any new duties or any new bureaucracy.
	Clause 21 allows the Assembly to make provision for the appointment of members of the panel, remuneration and allowances, and the preparation of reports. It requires the chief inspector to co-operate, for example, by providing the panel with access to staff and papers.
	We fully recognise that the management of the inspectorate is clearly a matter for the chief inspector. However, the new panel will provide what has been felt lacking for some time—it will fill a gap with an informed and independent view on the range of duties and responsibilities the Assembly is required to discharge with regard to Estyn—Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales. There is no mechanism for providing the Assembly with independent advice, and it is the independence of the advice that concerns us particularly.
	It might make sense to noble Lords if we consider what the panel might do. It will have three potential tasks. It will be able to advise the Assembly on the annual remit issued to the chief inspector by the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning. The chief inspector can devote 20 per cent of inspectorate time to strategic issues and development. That might go across a range of educational issues; it might relate to primary education, curriculum development or whatever. The inspector has the right to request that but, to date, has had no mechanism to obtain or commission advice for that purpose. So we look to the panel to provide an expert and informed view on the development of such a programme that would identify and address key issues consistent with policy objectives and priorities throughout Wales. It will bring a new strength to the inspectorate's arm and to the Assembly's arm and would draw them closer together into that dialogue. The panel will be able to advise on that range of issues.
	The panel will also be able to provide advice to Ministers in meeting the Assembly's statutory obligation to approve Estyn's annual plan. It will be able to advise the Assembly on the extent to which it believes that the plan will provide an effective platform for raising standards and quality in education and training to support the vision. It will be a critical friend to the Assembly in assessing how effective education and training in Wales has been, as mediated through Estyn's annual plan. I would have thought that that would be an extremely helpful new resource for the Assembly.
	The panel will also advise Ministers on the handling of any complaint against the chief inspector. There is no current mechanism for the consideration of such complaints, if they do not fall within the remit of the Welsh Administration Ombudsman. Therefore, it will be in the interests of all parties to ensure that the panel has unfettered access to papers and is in a position to provide such an informed and full opinion on the subject matter.
	The panel is essentially advisory. It will not have executive powers. It will be for Ministers to determine whether to accept or act on the advice, but it will be new advice that will be useful to the Assembly.
	Who will be on the panel? The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked me how many members the panel would have, who they would be and how they would be appointed. Much of that detail will be subject to consultation by the Assembly as part of the framing of the regulations, but I can tell the Committee that the panel will provide an informed, independent view on the role and contribution of inspection in raising standards. Essentially, it will be composed of practitioners. They will be people with wide experience in education. There will be representation from the business sector. We expect the membership to be no more than six, and the appointments will be made through the established Assembly procedures. I can write to the noble Lord with more detail about that. The clause sets out the basic principles, and the detail will be subject to consultation, as we frame the regulations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked what the panel would cost. The costs will be limited to travel and subsistence for panel members, and we expect Assembly officials to provide support for the panel. It will not be expensive.
	There is no duplication of roles and responsibilities in that there are no executive powers. It is not adding to the bureaucratic burden, but is added value. We believe that it is an important development. There can be no assumption that the panel will be an advisory, Assembly-sponsored public body. When it is established decisions on its status will be taken as part of the process to establish the panel itself. We believe it unlikely that the panel would draw one-third of its membership from outside the public sector, for example. It will be based in Cardiff. I do not have any other information available to me so I make that assumption.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, concluded by asking why it is unnecessary in England. Part of the answer was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We have the education committee in England which provides advice. In addition, we have mechanisms in England: there is the body which enables a chief inspector to be called to account. We have independent adjudicators available to deal with complaints against a chief inspector. We have a different system.
	We are trying to create something which we have been advised is needed and will be welcome. It is very good to know that the NUT in Wales has welcomed it. It will be limited, advisory, modest and effective as regards what it is intended to do. I hope that reassures Members of the Committee. I shall certainly write if we can provide any further details.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am very grateful to the Minister for her justification of this clause. Nevertheless, I am far from convinced of the necessity for this particular panel. I turn to the three functions which the noble Baroness described, the first of which is the advice on the inspector's remit. I would have thought it is very much a matter for the education committee of the Assembly. There is a statutory education committee and it is a matter for that committee and the Minister as to what the inspectorate's remit should be. Similarly, as regards the inspectorate's annual plan, that is surely a matter for the Minister to approve. It is not a matter on which to seek advice from a body of practitioners.
	If the advisory panel is there to examine complaints against the chief inspector, that is a role, as we heard this morning, which can also be played by the public services' ombudsman who is about to be created under another Bill which is coming before this House.
	I am sure that it will be costly. The noble Baroness referred to allowances, but she did not refer to the other related item—remuneration. Therefore, these advisors will be paid. There is not much doubt that they will find something to do. I shall certainly seek to inquire into the matter further.

Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may have the last word. As regards who sets the remit, it is advice which is required by the Minister for Education. One of the points I hoped to get across to Members of the Committee is that it is an independent group providing advice which the Minister and the Assembly will be unable to obtain anywhere else. That will be extremely important. I reiterate that the costs are limited because the panel members will be covered for travel and subsistence. I have no further advice as regards remuneration.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Baroness for her replies. She will realise that we still have some concerns, although she has undertaken to write to us, in particular on the point about remuneration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
	Clause 27 [Duty to arrange regular inspections of certain schools]:
	[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
	Clause 27 agreed to.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 85:
	After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
	"INSPECTION AT DISCRETION OF CHIEF INSPECTOR
	The Chief Inspector may inspect any school in Wales, in circumstances where he is not required by section 19(2)(b) or 27, where he may have cause for concern arising from his duty under section 19."

Lord Hanningfield: This amendment would allow the chief inspector in Wales the same power as his counterpart in England to inspect schools at his discretion where, under his duties outlined in Clause 19, he has cause for concern.
	The particular merit of this clause is that it would allow the chief inspector to inspect any school at any time if he had cause for concern. He would not necessarily have to wait for the usual and planned range of inspections. This is a step we can support in relation to England, and is why we thought it would be a useful addition to the powers available to the chief inspector in Wales. We are in favour of any measures that bring greater flexibility and responsiveness to the position.
	Perhaps the Minister could explain why such a power is to be granted to the inspector in England, but not in Wales. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: This is a valuable new clause in that it would give the chief inspector the right to inspect any school in Wales, whether required to do so or not by the Assembly or under Clause 27, if he has cause for concern arising from his general duty under Clause 19.
	I assume that the clause would allow a snap inspection when a school suddenly comes into the news and allegations fly—such a situation is not unknown in Wales. I am reminded of an occasion not so long ago in a rural area of Wales when some trouble arose. A school and its teacher were in the news, which occasioned a visit by a television camera crew. I recall the interviewer asking one of the mothers of a pupil at the school whether she had, "something against Miss Jones"—or whatever was the teacher's name. The mother replied, "Oh, goodness me, no. Only what I've heard". Clearly she knew something, but there was no way in which the interviewer could elicit what it was.
	That kind of situation does boil up from time to time and might require a snap inspection. I am not sure that it is the kind of circumstance that any HMI would like to step into, but at least they would not be debarred from doing so. Indeed, the inspectorate might be positively encouraged by the presence of such a provision. Moreover, public pressure often calls for a snap inspection, which might ease pressure on the Minister in the Assembly.

Baroness Walmsley: Although just a few minutes ago I said that England and Wales do not always have to be the same because they are very different countries, particularly in size, on this occasion I think there is merit in the proposed new clause. The reason I say that is that to a great extent children have only one chance at their education, although there are reparatory mechanisms available—sometimes, sadly, in the education department of a young offender's institution. We all know how difficult that can be. So if there is a need to get in quickly if there is immediate cause for concern and the chief inspector believes that an inspector will be able to identify clearly what the problems are and kick into place mechanisms to help put things right then there is no reason why that should not be as valid in Wales as in England. I support this amendment.

Baroness Andrews: I can give the noble Lords the assurances they seek. They have sought to bring forward a power for the chief inspector to inspect any school in Wales irrespective of whether such an inspection had been specifically requested by the Assembly under the powers in Clause 19(20)(b) or was part of the cycle of regular school inspection provided for in Clause 27.
	We talked a bit about Estyn and its functions in the previous debate. I agree with everything noble Lords have said about how essential it is for the inspectorate in discharging its remit to have unfettered access to schools and to be able to have the freedom to disseminate good practice without fear or favour. It should be able to identify shortfalls and be able to praise success. In the new inspection arrangements in both England and Wales we are trying to maximise the access that is vital to raising quality and standards.
	It is for this very reason that Clause 23 enables the chief inspector to arrange for any school in Wales to be inspected by an HMI. It also provides for an HMI to monitor school inspection being carried out by a registered inspector under Clause 27 and makes provision for right of entry and a right to inspect documents for the purposes of inspection.
	Inspection plays a key part in school improvement. The chief inspector must have the flexibility to arrange inspection and to monitor as and where necessary. That is the basis for open and fair reporting, and without that the integrity of the inspection system could be seriously impaired. Clause 23 ensures that is provided for Wales. On the basis that Estyn can inspect at the chief inspector's discretion at any time and at any school in Wales I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments. As she gives us an assurance that this is available we shall read the Bill again. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
	Clauses 29 to 35 agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Duty to notify where inspection shows maintained school causing concern]:
	[Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
	Clause 36 agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Destination of reports: maintained schools]:
	[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
	Clause 37 agreed to.
	Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Destination of reports: non-maintained schools]:
	[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
	Clause 40 agreed to.
	Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Categories of schools causing concern]:
	[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 29, line 2, leave out "and" and insert "or"

Baroness Morris of Bolton: Amendment No. 92 is a simple probing amendment in relation to categories of schools causing concern and where special measures were required in relation to schools in Wales.
	As the Bill currently stands, special measures would be required to be taken if the school was failing to give its pupils an accurate standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement.
	My question is simple: why before special measures are taken is it necessary to have both categories of failure occurring at the same time, as the inclusion of the word "and" in line 2 suggests? Surely it is possible for one to occur without the other. Indeed, as it stands, one would have to wait for the other to be judged to have occurred before special measures could be implemented. Given the seriousness of either of these categories, action should be taken if only one occurs. I hope the Minister can provide some assurance in this regard. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: I will do my best. It starts with a recognition of the seriousness of special measures. We have spoken about that and I shall not elaborate upon it, but clearly it is understood that they are implemented only in a situation where a school is very seriously failing.
	The way in which Clause 43 defines special measures—and, therefore, the way in which it triggers intervention action—is when a school is failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education and the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the school are not demonstrating a capacity to secure the necessary improvement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, that means that both criteria would need to be met before a special measures designation would be appropriate.
	This probing amendment would require a school to be made subject to special measures if only one of the two criteria was not met. That would mean that a school could be placed in special measures even though it was providing an acceptable standard of education but the leadership was not likely to secure improvement. We do not believe that would be right. Special measures are a serious matter and require radical and urgent action. They are not appropriate for a school whose performance is acceptable even though the leadership is not of the quality that would lead to the school being judged as likely to improve significantly.
	In any case, the standard of education is unlikely to be acceptable if the leaders, governors and managers do not demonstrate the capacity to secure the improvements that the school needs. The two often go hand in hand. Leadership is often a factor when a school is judged to require special measures.
	We believe that it is right to continue to identify the most serious cases of failure and to require action. The Bill does that. It also strengthens our drive to achieve higher and higher standards. A significant improvement category will ensure that schools with weaknesses in sixth form or other aspects of their provision are identified and receive additional support to help them. It will also put the spotlight on schools which are doing reasonably well but should be doing better. It will ensure that these schools, too, raise their performance.
	Let me with some hand signals—again to the bafflement of Hansard—try to illustrate that. Under the Clause 43 definition, there could be a school which was not giving its pupils an acceptable standard of education but which could, in the judgment of Ofsted, improve with new governors coming in, a new head and some new key staff. For the sake of argument, let us say that, after a year, it may have demonstrated such leadership potential that Ofsted could be confident that that was likely to move the school out of that unacceptable standard of performance without needing the heavy hand of the full special measures category. I expect to have the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, with me on this point of the argument.
	The alternative is that a school could be coasting. It could be perfectly acceptable in terms of performance but not brilliant, in which case the judgment of Ofsted might be that the head or the governors, or both, did not demonstrate the necessary ambition and seriousness required. It could be classified as an average school which did not have the push to go further. If Ofsted judged that the leadership was such that it was not going to improve the school further, it would be a case for action but it would not be a case for special measures.
	That is the reason, therefore, for the differentiation that the clause, as currently drafted, allows. We believe that it is a proper differentiation. Of course it is Ofsted's judgments which trigger different actions. I hope that has been helpful.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his reply. Sometimes the leadership is not particularly good but pupils still do quite a good job because of their wonderful teachers. As long as there is pre-emptive action to ensure that poor leadership does not permeate downwards, effectively causing the children to suffer, we are satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 93 to 95 not moved.]
	Clause 43 agreed to.
	Clause 44 [Cases where Secretary of State or Assembly may direct closure of school]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I am here under my own flag now. Clause 44 alters the power contained in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 for the Secretary of State or, in Wales, the Assembly to direct a local education authority to close a school that is causing concern.
	At present the Secretary of State or the Assembly has such power in relation to schools that require special measures or have serious weaknesses. In future, that power will apply only to schools that are placed in special measures.
	The change gives rise to a number of questions on which we would welcome the Minister's comments. We understand that the clause has been prompted by the change in the terminology and categories of schools that cause concern. My question is simple: what will happen to those schools that were categorised as "in serious weakness" and which were liable to be closed by either the Assembly or the Secretary of State? Presumably they will now be termed as "needing significant improvement" and will stay open. What will happen to the pupils in those schools?
	Perhaps the Minister can also give us the relevant information on how many schools each year were included in that category and were closed. The figure would be helpful in understanding the nature and scale of the problem that we are addressing.

Lord Filkin: The clear and simple questions are always the worst, but I shall have a go.
	The clause continues the power of the Secretary of State or of the National Assembly for Wales to direct a local education authority to close the school that has been in special measures. The clause gives the Secretary of State and the Assembly such a power only in relation to the most serious category of schools which give cause for concern.
	In that sense there is nothing new. The power has existed for several years. The clause largely re-enacts Section 19 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended by Section 56 of the Education Act 2002.
	At present, the Secretary of State and Assembly have power to direct closure of a school that is either subject to special measures or has serious weaknesses. The clause covers only those schools that require special measures. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to exercise powers in relation to other schools. The clause, therefore, does not cover schools requiring significant improvement.
	We believe that the power in this clause is still needed as a preventive measure. It has never been used by the Secretary of State or the Assembly, but it may be needed as a last resort if a school is in severe difficulties and rapid improvement is unlikely. We must retain the Secretary of State's and Assembly's ability to direct closure in such circumstances, and we must retain their ability to give such direction when a school is failing children and other intervention powers have not achieved improvement in standards.
	LEAs have powers under Section 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to close schools they maintain. Those apply whether or not a school is in special measures. LEAs may choose—that is probably the central point of the good question posed by the noble Baroness—to close failing schools, taking into account the number of school places available locally and local opinion. One hundred and seventy schools in special measures were closed by LEAs since 1998.
	Our policy has been that schools in special measures should be turned round or closed in two years. However, this policy is not applied inflexibly where signs of a school's recovery are evident. Where failure exists, we shall not hesitate to intervene and encourage local authorities to consider closure.
	Before making a direction under the clause the Secretary of State or the Assembly must consult the LEA. In the case of foundation or voluntary schools, they must consult with the diocese or other appropriate authority and any appropriate persons. These requirements ensure that any decision on closure takes account of the position in the local area. The greatest concern must be to ensure that children receive a good standard of education and that they are not let down by their schools or their LEAs. If that were to happen, the Secretary of State or the Assembly must be able to step in.
	I was asked how many schools had been closed by the Secretary of State or the Assembly. The power has been used and 1,200 schools have been closed by LEAs.
	I hope that as a consequence of what I have said the House will agree that Clause 44 stand part.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his detailed and direct reply.

Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 agreed to.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.
	Clause 46 agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Inspection of religious education: England]:

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Page 30, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) In exercising their duties and functions under this section, the governing body and the foundation governors of a school that is a Church of England school or a Roman Catholic Church school shall have regard to any advice issued by the appropriate diocesan authority."

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: In moving Amendment No. 96, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102 because they all touch on denominational inspection of schools of a religious character, often known as Section 23 inspections. I shall be as brief as I can.
	Amendment No. 96 is replicated in the case of Wales by Amendment No. 102. These amendments would require school governing bodies to have regard to any advice issued to them on such inspections by the appropriate diocesan authority. In the case of Church of England and Church in Wales schools, the appropriate authority is the diocesan board of education of the diocese in which the school is situated.
	I am in the happy position of moving these amendments in a warm ecumenical spirit. They take into account the particular needs of the two largest groups of schools with a religious character, the Anglican and Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales, although they are not the only groups. I stress that this is not the first time that someone speaking from these Benches has had the privilege of consulting the Catholic Education Service before moving an amendment with its explicit support. However, I am conscious that these amendments do not take account of the needs of other Christian schools—for example, Methodist schools—nor do they take account of the needs of Jewish, Sikh, Muslim or Seventh-day Adventist schools. I know that the Government have had discussions with the trustees of those schools and that they might be inclined to consider giving them similar powers to those proposed for diocesan authorities in these amendments. I heartily welcome that development.
	The additional powers over governing bodies that I am proposing for diocesan authorities require some explanation since they do not imply any lack of trust in the thousands of people who, to great effect, give large amounts of their free time for the benefit of schools and their pupils.
	It should be noted that these powers are modest. Governing bodies would be required to have regard to any advice over denominational inspection that they received from diocesan authorities. This falls into line with a group of powers that Church of England diocesan boards of education have through the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991, as amended. Those noble Lords who laboured through the Education Act 2002 may remember that an amendment to the measure extended similar powers to diocesan boards of education to give advice over school admission policies to governing bodies to which they must have regard. I was not directly involved in those discussions, but I heartily welcomed them.
	Secondly, these powers would be the first modest constraint over governing bodies or, in the case of voluntary controlled schools, the foundation governors, in the conduct of denominational inspection. At present, they can appoint who they will to conduct an inspection on any basis that they choose. In practice, as soon as they hear that they are to be inspected by Ofsted, the overwhelming number of church schools turn to their diocesan authorities and ask for advice on who to appoint as a denominational inspector.
	In the case of the Church of England and the Church in Wales schools, the dioceses have a list of inspectors who have been trained and registered through a national process organised by the National Society which I chair as chairman of the Board of Education of the Church of England. They are slightly overlapping bodies. I will not go into the details. One day I will understand the full details myself. They conduct the inspection in accordance with a framework developed by the National Society through national consultation.
	A new, lighter framework, influenced by the current Ofsted changes, is presently being piloted and taken very seriously by us. The system generally works well, but not every school seeks or heeds the advice of the diocesan authority. It is important that the quality of the process continues to be improved and is as may be assured, and these new powers are a step towards greater quality assurance. Even so, they would probably not be necessary, nor would I be seeking them, if it were not for a significant change in the proposals for Ofsted inspections, which I fully support but which make a radical difference to the way in which inspections are arranged.
	Currently, with the support of the diocese, schools arrange inspections to take place at the same time or immediately after an Ofsted inspection. That is desirable in every way, but it would not be possible under the new arrangements without two changes. A school may hear on a Friday afternoon that it is to be inspected the following week. That would leave no time for a denominational inspection to be arranged to take place at the same time.
	My officials have discussed this issue with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who has agreed in principle that diocesan authorities can be notified well ahead of the date of forthcoming inspections, provided that they maintain confidentiality and do not tell the school. They will then arrange an inspection and inform the school on the Friday afternoon who is to undertake it. No doubt they will act on a basis agreed with each of the diocesan schools; the governing bodies will still formally make the appointment, having had regard to the advice that they receive from the diocesan authority; and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has the power to inform the diocesan authority ahead of time. However, under the current arrangements they could do nothing with the information that they had received. Therefore, without these modest new powers, which also serve as a degree of quality assurance, the system would not work.
	Finally, I turn briefly to my proposed new clauses after Clause 48, in Amendments Nos. 100 and 101. These relate to academies with a religious character and, where they are Church of England or Roman Catholic institutions, extend to them the requirement of denominational inspection. At present there is a small number of such academies, and in a number of dioceses there are some developed plans for more. I hope that Members of the Committee will not find these proposals controversial but may even see in them a reassurance about some concerns over RE in one or two of those institutions that might be regarded as lacking in breadth or depth. I shall say no more on that.
	In summary, these probing amendments are about using and adapting existing structures and procedures in schools and academies with a denominational character, without frustrating, duplicating or ignoring them. I beg to move.

Lord Dearing: As one who has some involvement in the life of a Church of England school and has done previous work assisting in the development and thinking in Church of England schools, I intervene, having declared that interest, to say how very much I support these proposals. It is helpful to such schools to have the advice and guidance of the diocesan authority, although I note that it is to "have regard to" rather than to be told what to do, which I also welcome.
	I was particularly interested to hear what the right reverend Prelate had to say about the possible extension of such arrangements to Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and Seventh-day Adventist communities. In relation to academies and the powers of the proprietors, that could be a particularly helpful proposal.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I support the amendment. I was interested to hear the right reverend Prelate premise part of the practical proposals on an assumption that confidentiality would be kept by the diocesan board and offices. I shall go home to read more Trollope and reconsider whether I should send the right reverend Prelate a volume or two. That said, I support this amendment, particularly its ecumenical nature. Perhaps I may raise a wider point that the right reverend Prelate has raised by implication. The relation between religion and education, not least in the field of religious education per se, has been a notorious point of delicacy and, sometimes, of difficulty for Secretaries of State.
	When the great Butler Act of 1944 was first shown to the then Prime Minister Churchill, he referred to the relevant clauses as advocating Zoroastrianism or the county councils' creed, such were the difficulties that was faced in formulating the arrangements for religious education. The arrangements of the 1992 Act, which are reflected in this Bill, were correct; but they were drawn up in considerable haste, I suspect, because that Act was moving through the Houses as a general election approached.
	The broader denominational and multi-religious character of our country was, perhaps, not given the attention that it might have received if there had been more time. In the light of that and the introduction of city academies, which equally were not known about at the time, would the Government welcome, at a later stage in the Bill, an amendment which provided for regulations to be made, after consultation with the relevant bodies, to extend the amendment to a wider range of schools which might fall under the classification of "religious" or "denominational"? That would be one way of handling the matter, without having to rush to develop a clause which would require broad consultation in the community.

Lord Filkin: The amendment seeks to provide a greater statutory role for the diocesan authorities in the appointment of an inspector to inspect religious education and collective worship in the Church of England or Roman Catholic schools in England, or in Church in Wales or Roman Catholic schools in Wales. For the great majority of schools this is already custom and practice and works well. Schools already have existing close working relations with their diocese and are happy to take the recommendations of the diocese in appointing a suitably experienced and qualified inspector to undertake these inspections. Further, many dioceses actually relieve schools, at the schools' request, of the burden of arranging these inspections.
	However, there are a few examples where the inspector appointed has not been of the right stuff—where their experience has been found wanting or their processes were not sufficiently rigorous to identify areas for improvement in the teaching of the faith. This does no one any good. Parents rely on these inspectors to assure them that the faith they hold is being taught well in their schools. Schools may not be provided with sufficient challenge to their teaching of the faith to help them understand how it can be improved. To that end, we agree with the principles behind the right reverend Prelate's amendments.
	The aim is to ensure that the inspections to be carried out in schools with a denominational character are as congruous as possible with these additional inspections. We do not want to see schools subjected to multiple inspections where it can be helped. I know that there have been fruitful discussions with Ofsted and the representatives of the faith groups on this issue. I believe that it is intended that a protocol to allow the sharing of relevant information between Ofsted and appropriate individuals, on a confidential basis, is developed. Yet that would be of little effect if those inspections were not more robust.
	The Government believe in opportunity for all and the amendment would not aid those pupils in schools from other faiths. Officials from the department have been working hard with representatives from all faiths to look at how this can be achieved. No firm conclusions have been reached, but I am hopeful that the Government can support an amendment that will achieve the ambitions that we share.
	In Wales, the aim is also welcomed and the situation is similar. The aim is to ensure that the inspections to be carried out are of equal rigour to those undertaken by Estyn. Similarly, officials have been working with representatives from all faiths to consider how that can be achieved. Again, conclusions have not been finalised, but we are optimistic that they will be.
	Perhaps I may turn to the other amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. Amendment No. 100 concerns academies and city technology colleges which are designated as having a religious character. The amendment would create the same arrangements for the inspection of religious education and collective worship undertaken in those institutions as in maintained faith schools. The Government support the principles behind the amendment; namely, that the provision for the teaching of religious education and for a daily act of collective worship in academies should be inspected in a manner consistent with that for foundation and voluntary faith schools. We do not believe that it is necessary to place these requirements in the legislation as the same objective can be achieved by stipulating them in the funding agreement for each academy and CTC.
	We are confident that all existing academies and CTCs which are designated as having a religious character and which are sponsored by the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church will willingly change their funding agreements to implement the proposed inspection arrangements. The model funding agreement will be altered so that all new designated academies will be required to follow the inspection arrangements that apply to maintained faith schools.
	Therefore, while I am not in a position today to bring forward amendments, I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth will take some comfort from those assurances and wait in patience until Report.

Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question about something that he has just said. If an existing faith-based academy were not willing to change its funding contract, what would the Government do?

Lord Filkin: We would have to do something different, but that does not appear to be a problem.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I am very grateful to Members of the Committee who have contributed to this brief debate, and I am pleased to have the support of the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Sutherland.
	In response—I am afraid that I simply cannot resist this—as the son of a spy and a reader of Trollope, an episcopal colleague of mine was interviewed for a post at Lambeth Palace. On being asked a question, he replied, "Confidentiality in the Church of England means telling one person at a time", whereupon he got the job. But I have to say that my experience of other walks of life is that this place leaks as well. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, will accept that in the spirit in which it is offered.
	I am very pleased to have the Minister's reassurances, and I conclude with one or two brief remarks about academies and RE. The Church of England can be very proud of pioneering by adapting what was in the past traditional and rather wooden RE in two directions—in an ecumenical direction and an inter-faith direction—and in the context of this kind of legislation, which will call into account academies and Church and faith schools. I also refer to the new initiatives relating to the RE framework, which personally I hope will move towards a syllabus. It will mean that in the schools of the other faith communities we shall be able to expect the same kind of breadth that I am proud to say is operated by the Church of England. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 47 agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Procedure for inspections under section 47]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 30, line 25, leave out "prescribed period" and insert "period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection"

Lord Filkin: We now come to the part for which all noble Lords have been waiting—the government amendments. These are minor technical amendments, which clarify two distinct prescribed periods in relation to the delivery of inspections of denominational education and collective worship in faith schools in England and Wales.
	The first prescribed period relates to the period within which the inspection must take place. The second period relates to the period within which the inspection report must be produced. I hope that that is clear and acceptable. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
	Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 not moved.]
	Clause 49 [Inspection of religious education: Wales]:
	[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
	Clause 49 agreed to.
	Schedule 6 [Inspections of denominational education in Wales]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 80, line 10, leave out "prescribed period" and insert "period prescribed for the purpose of this sub-paragraph"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 50 to 52 agreed to.
	Schedule 7 [Inspection of child minding, day care and nursery education]:

Baroness Morris of Bolton: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Page 81, line 21, leave out paragraph 1.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: Schedule 7 expands the general duty of the chief inspector for England to keep the Secretary of State informed about child minding. In addition to the quality and standards of child minding, he must also keep the Secretary of State informed about how far child minding and day care meet the range of children cared for, about the quality of the leadership and management of day care and about the contribution made by such facilities to the well-being of each child.
	In effect, it extends to childcare and day care the same judgment criteria now used by Ofsted in regard to the inspection of schools. Therefore, such an expansion raises a number of clear issues both from the inspectors' point of view and from that of the day care and child minding providers. There is, of course, the general concern that this is yet another growth of the inspection services in yet another area of education provision that is seemingly unwarranted and unhelpful.
	However, in regard to the inspectors, the concern is not so much over the availability of inspectors, but whether the inspectors themselves will have adequate knowledge and be au fait with the particular circumstances involved in such provision.
	I know that the Minister in answer to an earlier question said that inspectors would have specialist knowledge, which would be very important, but inspecting a sixth form is considerably different from inspecting a child minding centre. Yet under this system that is what inspectors will be asked to do; they will be asked to judge both. Does the Minister have any concerns that there is a risk that the inspectors are becoming too generalised without the specialist knowledge required for different circumstances? Furthermore, what sort of additional strains, both in financial terms and in manpower, will this new responsibility place on Ofsted and how will it cope without cutting back in other areas?
	In relation to the day care providers, there is very genuine concern that they may be swamped by new burdens and targets that are simply impractical for them to achieve. We might be dealing here with tiny, independently operated facilities that may well cater for only two or three children and yet they will be expected to know how best to contribute to the well-being of each child. I am not saying that they do not, but I am talking about the targets that they have to achieve.
	It may be possible for a 1,000-strong school, where there could well be the resources to accommodate such a requirement, but surely the Minister can anticipate some of the likely problems in regard to small day care centres. Indeed, how many owners of such facilities will know about the whole raft of legislation on well-being, let alone the official version as set out in Section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004? Therefore, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that childcare providers are made aware of those new categories on which they are to be judged? Will there be some sort of information exercise?
	This seems to be very much a step too far in terms of excessive bureaucracy which is unlikely to improve the existing system. We have serious reservations about this paragraph and that is why Amendment No. 104 would remove it from the Bill.
	The other amendments to this schedule are consistent with our concerns over the scrapping of the registered inspectors and would retain the status quo for registered inspectors in the inspections of early-years provision in England and would ensure a unified approach between England and Wales. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: I start by saying that I fully share the concern that Ofsted's early years inspection workforce is of the highest quality and fit for the purpose. We attach great importance to the training and development of inspectors.
	Early childhood is a time of vital importance in children's development and the quality of care that children receive in their early years makes a real difference to their development and achievements in later life. Recent powerful research studies have shown that the gain achieved from good early years' interventions into learning in primary school is sustained. So we have good reason for feeling that this thrust of policy is right.
	Schedule 7 removes the requirement on the chief inspector for England to maintain registers of early years childcare inspectors and nursery education inspectors. The amendment seeks to reverse that, which, in logic and consistency with the stance of earlier debates this week, we would expect. But we do not believe that removing these registers would be detrimental to the quality of childcare inspectors.
	At present, most Ofsted early years inspectors are Ofsted employees and, as such, are not separately registered. In the early years sector, Ofsted is already able to monitor the quality and ensure the accountability of its inspectors through its internal processes. Therefore, there is little need for a register.
	However, should Ofsted decide in future to engage more external inspectors, as it currently does for its school inspections, it would be administratively cumbersome for Ofsted to have overlapping registration and contracting arrangements. We propose that Ofsted monitors and controls the performance and quality of any external inspector it may decide to engage in future through normal contract terms and contract management, which we believe is perfectly adequate and appropriate. That is currently the case for Ofsted-employed inspectors.
	Contract negotiation and management will be just as effective as any registration system in securing the services of appropriately qualified and experienced inspectors, and a lot less bureaucratic for Ofsted to operate. All inspectors, whether external or directly employed by Ofsted, will still be required to meet stringent criteria. In addition, Ofsted already has in place robust quality assurance and performance management arrangements to ensure the quality of its early years inspectors.
	Our proposal to remove the registers of early years childcare inspectors and nursery education inspectors represents an important simplification in the administration of the inspection arrangements in England, and should therefore stand.
	The other change we seek to introduce through Schedule 7, and which would be affected by the proposed amendments, is the additional matters on which we propose Ofsted and Estyn should be required to report. Our proposals for change apply both to the general duty of the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about the state of childcare nationally, and the individual reports that are made following inspection of childcare settings. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7, which the amendment would remove, covers the latter. They also apply to all reports by Estyn in relation to nursery education.
	As the House knows, the Children Act 2004 provides that each children's services authority must promote co-operation in the delivery of children's services with a view to improving the well-being of children in their areas. Early years settings have their part to play and it is important that Ofsted assesses, as part of the inspection process, how the childcare contributes to children's well-being, not least so that these findings can be fed through to the joint area reviews to be led by Ofsted. Similarly, it is important that Estyn assesses how nursery education contributes to children's well-being. You could argue that in fact it is more important that there is an inspection of the well-being contribution, given the powerful evidence of the impact of early years influences on a child's future ability, not only to learn but also to socialise and to take a positive attitude to life. I shall not go into detail.
	We believe it is important that Ofsted and Estyn report on how the childcare meets the needs of the range of children for whom it is provided, as children may have very different needs. Ofsted therefore plans to change the focus of its early years inspections so that judgments are made on the basis of what it is like for individual children within a childcare setting. The results of pilot inspections that have been carried out on this basis are encouraging. Both childcare providers and inspectors have been positive about the new approach and we believe that this will ultimately benefit the children.
	It is important to make specific reference to leadership and management for day care. As for schools, good leadership and management are crucial in securing high-quality early-years services. The amendment would remove those key changes to the matters on which Ofsted and Estyn must report. We believe that extending those criteria will ultimately help us to secure better childcare services that meet children's needs and contribute to their well-being—all part of our determination to ensure that children are given the best start. Inspection is an important lever in improving quality, and the proposed changes to the legal frameworks will enable Ofsted and Estyn to carry out their inspection activity more effectively.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked whether inspectors were at risk of becoming too generalised, and whether they would be expected to cover both the sixth form and early years. My understanding is that they would not, because there would be specialisation. The most effective answer that I could give on manpower loads would be in a more detailed note from Ofsted that signals why we believe it is perfectly manageable. I will also respond in writing to the noble Baroness's question on how childcare providers would be made aware of the process. Although I have not given the noble Baroness full answers, I hope that she will await with eager anticipation the letters that will fill the gaps.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his reply. I will indeed wait with eager anticipation. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 82, line 10, at end insert—
	"(5A) After subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A) Regulations may make provision requiring a registered person, except in prescribed cases, to notify prescribed persons of the fact that any child minding or day care provided by the registered person is to be inspected under this section.""

Lord Filkin: This group of amendments applies to England and Wales. They enhance the level of parental involvement in the inspection of early-years provision. I have some confidence that the House is likely to welcome them.
	One of the most important elements of our 10-year childcare strategy, published last month, is that parents should have the information they need to make informed choices about childcare. Not least, they need to know what aspects of quality are important for their children's development and how the childcare they have chosen matches up. As noble Lords have said previously, parental involvement is vital; we share that view. They can exercise influence in securing improvement where necessary.
	That has been an established feature of the school inspection arrangements for some time, and the amendments, which apply to England only bring the early-years inspection arrangements into line with those considerations. School governing bodies are currently required to notify parents of forthcoming inspections and to ensure that each parent receives a copy of the subsequent inspection report. There is currently no such duty on early-years childcare or nursery education providers. The purpose of the amendments is therefore to ensure that parents' rights to information before and after an inspection are the same for both schools and early-years settings.
	The amendments relate to Schedule 7, which deals with inspection of childminding, day care and nursery education. They propose that regulations may provide that registered childminders, day carers and "responsible persons" must notify prescribed persons of a forthcoming inspection. It is intended that those "prescribed persons" would be parents. They also provide that regulations may prescribe who is sent a copy of the report and to whom a copy of the report must be made available. It is intended that parents would be sent a copy of the report.
	Another technical amendment, Amendment No. 112, is not intended to make any practical difference to the inspection of nursery education but is necessary due to the repeal of Section 120 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 by the Children Act 2004.
	Although the regulation-making powers provided for in the amendments to Schedule 7 do not expressly make reference to parents, the regulations will make it clear that parents will be entitled to receive a copy of the inspection report. Draft regulations have already been provided to the House, but I will ensure that revised draft regulations, which take into account these amendments, are made available.
	We have carefully considered the impact of the new requirements on early-years settings, the majority of which comprise private and voluntary-sector providers. We are confident that the impact of the amendments will be minimal.
	I should also explain that Amendment No. 121 remains starred, as a small error in new sub-paragraph 2(c) was spotted late in the day; it has now been corrected. I hope that my remarks clarify the government amendments sufficiently for the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendments Nos. 108 to 110:
	Page 82, line 34, at end insert—
	"(aa) shall ensure that a copy of the report is sent to the registered person providing the child minding or day care that was inspected;"
	Page 82, line 36, leave out "any prescribed authorities or persons" and insert "such other authorities or persons as may be prescribed"
	Page 82, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 83 and insert—
	"(3A) Regulations may make provision—
	(a) requiring a registered person to make a copy of any report sent to him under subsection (3)(aa) available for inspection by prescribed persons,
	(b) requiring a registered person, except in prescribed cases, to provide a copy of the report to prescribed persons, and
	(c) authorising a registered person in prescribed cases to charge a fee for providing a copy of the report."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 111:
	Page 83, line 14, leave out paragraph 6.

Lord Hanningfield: Although this clause re-enacts Clause 42 of the 1996 Act word for word, it is perhaps worth taking this valuable opportunity to raise with the Minister a number of the questions and concerns that seems to us to arise from a clause of this nature.
	I believe that with any power to investigate and inspect an individual's personal possessions, or what in this case could be described as their intellectual property, we must be mindful that such a power does not unnecessarily intrude into private lives. It would therefore be useful if the Minister could explain where such a clause would be used—in what circumstances and to achieve what aims. The matter of who would be authorised to carry out such an investigation also is relatively vague. I would also welcome the Minister's clarification on that.
	As the power has been around for just under 10 years, presumably the Minister can tell us how often it has been used and for what purposes and whether any difficulties in its use have arisen during that time. If it has not been used in that period, why does the Minister think that such a clause is still necessary?
	Finally, Amendment No. 111 is consequential on the removal of Clause 57 from the Bill in relation to the Children Act 1989. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has asked for the rationale of the clause, who will implement the powers that the clause provides, and whether we have had any difficulties with the power. Perhaps I should say first what the clause does not do as that should take care of both parts of the argument. It is very important that both the paragraph in Schedule 7 which the amendment seeks to remove and Clause 57 remain part of the Bill.
	Clause 57 essentially supplements Clauses 4 and 9, which provide inspectors with the right to determine what records and other documents they inspect. The clause ensures that inspectors can go to the source of the records where it appears to them that there may be related material which is relevant to the inspection. That notion of related material is particularly important.
	As the noble Lord said, the power already exists. It is important because of the nature of the evidence inspectors collect when they come to cast judgment on the efficacy of the work being done. For example, where inspectors evaluate children's work done on computer, they may wish to look at preparatory work, previous drafts, source materials or test animations or to look at work using control technology—in a sense, the prehistory of the project. Increasingly, schools' and early-years providers' management systems, timetables and attendance records are also held electronically. We are looking at a departure from the use of paper because much of the evidence used to validate pupils' work and the schools' organisational structures and strategies are on computer.
	Computer systems are inevitably secure systems. Inspectors will need to be given access to them or have material retrieved or demonstrated for them. This clause gives them the right to do so. It makes a specific distinction between computers and other records and provides for inspectors to have access to relevant computer records during an inspection. That is what it does.
	The noble Lord raised issues of personal property and personal data. In looking at schools' records and documentation, inspectors will see personal data of the staff and pupils. However, they will not take copies of the data and Ofsted does not collect personal data on individuals when inspecting schools; that is outwith the inspection. Therefore, the Data Protection Act does not apply. We are looking at Ofsted's own records in that respect. The school has its own responsibilities for data protection. If it is concerned about material that it is presenting to the inspectors, including personal data, it would have to decide whether to anonymise that information. So I think that the noble Lord's first point is covered by that.
	This clause is very much about the inspectors' access over the past 10 years to the sources of information, to give them a good fix on what they are looking at superficially. So in that sense the power is benign. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that such access is necessary. It minimises the burdens that would otherwise be placed on schools and early-years settings.
	Schedule 7 includes a number of provisions which replace references to the School Inspections Act with the equivalent references in the Bill. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 would amend Section 79(u) of the Children Act 1989 by replacing a reference to the School Inspections Act 1996 with a reference to the provisions in Clause 57. Clause 57 re-enacts Section 42 of the 1996 Act, as the noble Lord said. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 is therefore required as a consequential amendment to the repeal of Section 42.
	I hope that I have given noble Lords sufficient reassurance that this is a necessary clause; it has worked well. I have no record or information about any complaints about it in operation. The accountability is built in.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I accept what she says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 112:
	Page 83, line 28, at end insert—
	"8A (1) Paragraph 1 is amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
	(a) before paragraph (a) insert—
	"(za) nursery education provided in a maintained school or a maintained nursery school;"
	(b) in paragraph (a), after "nursery education" insert "not falling within paragraph (za)";
	(c) for paragraph (b) substitute—
	"(b) nursery education which is provided by any other person under arrangements made with that person by a local education authority in pursuance of the duty imposed on the authority by section 118 and in consideration of financial assistance provided by the authority under the arrangements."
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2), for the words from "to whom" onwards substitute "with whom a local education authority are considering making arrangements in pursuance of the duty imposed on the authority by section 118 for the provision of nursery education in consideration of financial assistance provided by the authority under the arrangements".
	(4) For sub-paragraph (3) substitute—
	"(3) Where—
	(a) any education is for the time being provided at any premises for children who have not attained the age prescribed for the purposes of section 118(1)(b) ("the prescribed age"), and
	(b) that education is provided by a person—
	(i) who proposes to provide nursery education at those premises for children who have attained the prescribed age, and
	(ii) with whom a local education authority are considering making arrangements of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2),
	the education is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as nursery education under consideration for funding even though it is provided for children who have not attained the prescribed age.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 85, line 6, at end insert—
	"(4) Regulations may make provision requiring the responsible person to notify prescribed persons of the fact that relevant nursery education or nursery education under consideration for funding provided by the responsible person is to be inspected under this paragraph.
	(5) In sub-paragraph (4) "the responsible person", in relation to any relevant nursery education or nursery education under consideration for funding, means such person as may be prescribed."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 115 to 120 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 87, line 10, leave out from "delay" to end of line 14 and insert—
	"(i) to the responsible person, and
	(ii) to such other authorities and persons as may be prescribed.
	(2) Regulations may make provision—
	(a) requiring the responsible person to make a copy of any report sent to him under sub-paragraph (1)(b)(i) available for inspection by prescribed persons,
	(b) requiring the responsible person to provide a copy of the report to prescribed persons, and
	(c) authorising the responsible person in prescribed cases to charge a fee for providing a copy of the report.
	(2A) In sub-paragraph (2) "responsible person" has the meaning given by paragraph 6A(5)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 not moved.]
	Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 53 [Inspection of independent schools]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hanningfield: Clause 53 and Schedule 8 deal with changes to the inspection system of independent schools in England resulting from the removal of the category and responsibilities of registered inspectors. The status quo is therefore maintained in regard to Wales.
	Therefore in regard to our earlier concerns about the removal of the category of registered inspectors—an issue that I am sure we will come back to later—these two amendments are designed to ensure consistency of approach by removing from this clause the abolition of registered inspectors in regard to the inspection of independent schools.
	What, if any, work has been conducted as to the removal of registered inspectors in the independent school sector? Does the Minister envisage any particular concerns that might arise from such a move in regard to independent schools?
	Furthermore, I would be interested to learn whether the Minister consulted in the independent sector either before or after the plan to abolish registered inspectors was announced and if so what was the considered response.

Lord Filkin: Clause 53 and Schedule 8 amend Part 10 Chapter 1 of the Education Act 2002, which relates, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, to the inspection of independent schools. The amendments are of a technical nature and are required—as the noble Lord signalled—as a result of the discontinuance of the use of registered inspectors to inspect schools in England. Registered inspectors will still carry out inspections in Wales.
	To make the changes, it has been necessary to provide separate clauses for England and Wales. No other changes to the inspection arrangements for independent schools are being made and the powers to inspect independent schools as set out in the current Section 163 and the rights of entry and related supplementary responsibilities in Section 164 remain.
	In practice, registered inspectors have not been used in the inspection of independent schools in England since the power was introduced in Section 163(1)(a) of the Education Act 2002. All inspections carried out under Section 163(1)(a) have continued to be undertaken by Ofsted, and the removal of the power for inspection by registered inspectors has no practical effect.
	Schedule 8 inserts a new Section 162A into the Education Act 2002 that replicates the provisions of existing Section 163 but removes the references to registered inspectors in Section 163(1)(a). The amendment relates to the inspection of independent schools by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England only.
	Schedule 8 also inserts new Section 162B, which replicates the provisions of the existing Section 164 in relation to inspections of independent schools in England, except that the reference in Section 164(1) to registered inspectors is removed and Sections 164(2)(3) and (4) are no longer relevant, as they refer to inspections conducted by registered inspectors.
	Finally, Schedule 8 replaces existing Sections 163 and 164 of the Education Act 2002 to maintain the status quo for inspections of independent schools in Wales, where power to allow registered inspectors to conduct inspections will continue.
	I hope that that explanation is clear, if fulsome. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on the point about consultation. I hope that my explanation has been helpful. For those reasons, we believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Hanningfield: As I said, we will return to the issue of registered inspectors and whether we should have a new list of registered inspectors, an issue that seemed to emerge in the debate earlier in the week.
	I thank the Minister for his reply, which was very technical. He read it out very fast, and I did not assimilate all of it. He also promised to write to me. I shall read his reply with interest in Hansard.

Clause 53 agreed to.
	Schedule 8 agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Inspection of careers services in Wales]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 125:
	Page 33, line 10, at end insert ", or
	(c) make an annual report to the Assembly that shall additionally be laid before Parliament concerning his activities carried out under sections 54 and 55."

Lord Hanningfield: Amendment No. 125 would compel the chief inspector in Wales to lay before the Assembly and Parliament an annual report of his activities regarding the inspection of the careers service in Wales.
	There is no mechanism in the Bill whereby a suitable avenue is available for the monitoring and scrutiny of the chief inspector's activities with regard to inspecting the careers service. It is a new remit for the chief inspector in Wales, so it would seem appropriate that both the Assembly and Parliament should have an opportunity to be aware of how he conducts his activities.
	The Minister might ask why Parliament should be included as well as the Assembly. However, it would be appropriate, as we are discussing the provisions, that Parliament should also receive a copy of his report. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: We oppose the amendment. The time has come for us to trust the Welsh Assembly. We have given Wales devolution, and we say that they need more powers. This is an opportunity for us to show that we mean what we say.
	We should show confidence in the Assembly and let it have the last word on the issue. We should accept the wording of the Bill.

Baroness Andrews: I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, to the Front Bench—what an eloquent start. If he supports the Government with that degree of conviction every time he stands up, we will be well pleased.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, wants to require the chief inspector to make an annual report to the Assembly on activities undertaken under Clauses 54 and 55, which relate to the inspection of careers services. As the noble Lord says, it is a new task for the inspection service. In addition, the amendment would require that the report be laid before Parliament.
	Clauses 54 to 56 extend the remit of the Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales. We are pleased that the careers service in Wales will be brought under the same system of inspection as other education and training providers within the chief inspector's remit. It means that the same rigour is applied to the inspection of the careers service in Wales as has been applied to all other aspects of education and training. The provision will also give the power to inspect any provider of career services and to publish the findings. This is an important and welcome development. It will mean that there is more readily accessible information on the quality and standard of the services provided for young people in respect of Careers Wales. Inspection reports will provide a template for the Assembly working with Careers Wales to continue to improve the services provided and to take early action to address shortcomings.
	Therefore, it is quite right that the chief inspector should be required to report every year and that the report be published. It will be an annual report to the Assembly. It is a kind of state of the nation report and that is why the Assembly is the right place to receive it. It will summarise the key findings.
	As regards the laying of the report, Clause 20 requires that it is made and published by the Assembly, as is currently the case under the School Inspections Act read with the Government of Wales Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, education and training in Wales are devolved matters as a result of the provision in the Government of Wales Act which makes the National Assembly for Wales responsible for the funding of the inspectorate. As I have said, there is no doubt that a report on the state of the nation like this belongs with Wales.
	I cannot avoid saying that to accept the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, to require a report to be laid before Parliament as well as the Assembly would alter the devolution settlement. We are not inclined to do that. It is the Assembly which is responsible for the direction of education policy in Wales and it is right that the chief inspector should report only to the Assembly on matters which fall within that function.
	Parliament does have a wider remit and in particular as regards discharging duties related to the use of public money and the value for money obtained. There are already mechanisms: there is the Comptroller and the Auditor-General who can carry out examinations into and report on the finances of the chief inspector's office. The House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee can ask the Assembly's Audit Committee to take evidence. That is laid down in the Government of Wales Act.
	I hope that both the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and I have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on those grounds.

Lord Hanningfield: I realised that I was doomed when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, opposed the amendment. I thank the noble Baroness for that very extensive response. I shall read what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 54 agreed to.
	Clauses 55 to 60 agreed to.
	Schedule 9 agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hanningfield: It is clear from some of our debates that we have a diverging education system on either side of the border. It is separate and distinct, which is only right with the creation of the Welsh Assembly. As we said several times at Second Reading, it would have been advantageous if we could have had a separate Bill to deal with the specific elements relating to Wales.
	Although we have an assembly in Cardiff with its own education Minister handling the devolved responsibilities for education, it seems slightly odd that Members of your Lordships' House are being asked to take part in judgments on an area of devolved responsibility. However, I am of course aware that such powers are far more limited than is the case for the Scottish Parliament.
	Make no mistake, I believe that this is the Parliament of the entire United Kingdom. However, when considering the lack of amendments tabled in respect of the Welsh elements of the Bill, it worries me that noble Lords may be under the impression that such areas are somehow off limits. We are concerned that we may be passing legislation while the expected level of scrutiny that this House demands is not being met, thus doing a gross disservice to the Welsh people.
	Perhaps the Minister could take a moment to explain—if he is unable to provide an answer today, perhaps he would write to me—why we are discussing such matters of devolved responsibility. Which particular elements of the Welsh education policy are devolved and which are reserved? Which section of the Government of Wales Act 1998 is applicable to this concern, and what if any plans do the Government have to address this issue in the near future?

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: We do not agree with this suggestion because not only have we given Wales devolved responsibility but also, when the subject and this Bill were discussed with them, Assembly Members said that they were in favour of it. This is not something from out of the blue. As Campbell-Bannerman said many years ago—

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord; that is exactly what we are saying. We agree with devolved responsibility, but we feel that there should be a little more discussion here. The Bill does not have enough detail to enable us to consider it.
	We agree that these are matters devolved to the Assembly, but almost every speaker at Second Reading remarked that it is a pity that there is no separate Welsh education Bill, which could then have devolved powers to Wales.
	I agree with the noble Lord. Our Question whether this clause should stand part provides the only opportunity for the Government to explain their reasoning before the provisions are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and we agree with that.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I am glad to hear it. Time after time in debates of this kind we hear arguments that certain powers should be retained by the Westminster Parliament, or that the Welsh Assembly should report to this place. However, we say that we have to trust the Welsh Assembly.

Lord Hanningfield: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. The words I used were "separate", "distinct" and "only right with the creation of the Welsh Assembly". Devolution is right with regard to the Assembly. We seek to elicit from the Government their views on the provision before it devolves to the Assembly.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: Shall we wait to see what the Minister has to say? Our concerns may be put to rest. However, I am so glad that the Conservative Party is now supporting devolution—and supporting it all the way, which it has not done in the past.
	If we take out this clause we would undermine the intention for education in Wales. I shall finish that quotation from Campbell-Bannerman, who said 100 years ago that:
	"Self-government is better than good government".
	That is what we have given Wales and we want to act on it as far as we can in this Bill.

Baroness Andrews: I am sorry that that lively debate has come to an end. To be called to arbitrate between the two Opposition parties is rather a luxurious position. Moreover, I am glad that the noble Lord has confirmed the welcome given by the Conservatives to devolution in Wales.
	Education and training are wholly devolved matters. I understand that certain provisions set out in Clause 61 will allow for changes to be made by regulation, but those will be based on consultation. That said, part of the answer to the noble Lord's fundamental question is that when changes are made in Wales following enabling provisions set out in legislation in this place, that is done, as always, on the basis of consultation undertaken in Wales. There is a dichotomy here. There is always some difficulty for us in the London Parliament discussing in detail Welsh affairs which we are not fully informed about. It is for the Assembly to get that right and to put consultation processes in place.
	Let me explain why Wales has the ability to make changes at a later stage. A new inspection system was introduced in Wales in September 2004. Bringing all inspection within one framework is a major change. That puts a major new responsibility on the providers and on the inspection process. It is based on the principle that the scale of inspection should be proportionate to performance with scaled-down inspections for schools with a strong emphasis on high standards continually being achieved. The inspection process remains vigorous and effective.
	Along with those changes and with this Bill it was recognised that there is some point in making a number of changes in legislation to support the implementation of the common inspection framework in Wales. However, the emphasis is on taking powers to amend inspection arrangements by regulation as the common inspection framework beds in. Any changes will be subject to full consultation with schools.
	I believe that we should leave this subject there. These are matters for the Welsh Inspectorate and Welsh schools, the Welsh education framework and interested parties. The noble Lord is right; at Second Reading there was discussion about whether consideration had been given to a separate Bill for Wales. My noble friend subsequently wrote to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Livsey of Talgarth, confirming that we had considered this. However, we thought that the synergies between the changes for England and Wales were strong enough to warrant a single Bill; in view of the large number of clauses covering England and Wales, that makes sense.
	The most important point is that the department, the Welsh Office and the Assembly work well together so we get both the process and the outcome right. Whether we have a single or joint Bill is less important than whether its implementation is properly done and effective.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is not in his place. He spoke very eloquently about what it was important to achieve in Wales. He said that Wales could adopt the new inspectorate system for England in its entirety but, having taken the view that this novel common inspection framework was only recently introduced, it was too early to change the system yet. That sounds reasonable enough. It is important that Wales should keep its options open. The noble Lord preferred any impression of lack of joined-up thinking to regretting a missed legislative opportunity by closing off an option early. Those were wise words.
	I hope the noble Lord is reassured by that. The central provision has to be that inspection develops in a manner that is distinctive to and serves the needs of the learners. The provisions in Clause 61 will provide the Assembly with the necessary powers to develop an inspection framework which is sensitive to need but which is also progressive and consistent with what young people will need in the coming years. So I hope on that basis he will withdraw his objection.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that. I was never going to vote to remove part of this clause. I opposed the Question, that Clause 61 stand part in order to get the sort of answer that we have just had. We felt—my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy was unable to stay for this debate—that there is a big chunk of the Bill about Wales but that there has not been that much discussion or amendments about it. Therefore it was not fair on Wales that we were not discussing this more. Yes, we have a Welsh Assembly; whether we agree with it or not it is here and has devolved powers. We felt that there should be more discussion in your Lordships' House.
	However, I thank the Minister for her reply and will convey her points to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy.

Clause 61 agreed to.
	Clause 62 agreed to.

Lord Filkin: Before moving closure, I should like to correct a figure that was given earlier. We signalled that 1,200 schools had been closed by local authorities—which I thought at the time was going it somewhat. In fact, we believe the figure is 176.
	I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at six minutes past six o'clock.